Conflict resolution

Working through conflict in a collaborative way without a solution imposed by a boss can take time. However, the structure of Teal organizations within which employees are trusted to make decisions collaboratively from a place of wholeness and care for others, prevents many conflicts from happening in the first place. Also, many Teal organizations extensively train their employees in effective communication and similar skills that make talking through conflict an easier and faster process. Even if resolving conflict does take some extra time, there are many benefits, such as increased productivity from happier and more empowered workers.

In traditional companies, when one person doesn’t deliver, colleagues grumble and complain but leave it to the person’s boss to do something about it. In self-managing organizations, people have to step up and confront colleagues who fail to uphold their commitments. This can sometimes be difficult or uncomfortable. Teal organizations invest a lot of time and effort in giving people the skills and resources they need to do this effectively.

When there is disagreement between two colleagues, they may try to send it up to the founder or CEO or other person deemed to have more authority. The temptation to settle the matters in this way is resisted. Instead, the conflict resolution mechanism helps colleagues work through the conflict together. In this way, they learn that their voice is valued and they do have the power to hold peers to their commitments, without the intervention of a boss, even if it can be uncomfortable at times. A CEO or founder might be involved later on if the original colleagues can’t sort the issue out one-on-one and if they choose this person as a mediator or panel member. But neither a mediator nor a panel can impose a solution. Other support may also be requested when teams run into trouble, but ultimately the participants must find their own solution.

Innovative curriculum and organizational model that fosters a sense of community and encourages the surfacing and resolution of conflict.

At ESBZ , a large school has been broken down into smaller, self governing units, to create a sense of community within mini-schools. In addition, all teachers and students are trained in Nonviolent Communication. Utilizing these and other conflict resolution skills, every class gets together at a fixed time each week to discuss and deal with tensions in the group. The meeting is facilitated by a student who enforces a number of ground rules that keep the discussion safe.

Innovative management practices are used to create a supportive work culture that fosters trust, empathy and compassion, while decreasing conflict.

At Heiligenfeld every Tuesday morning, all 350 employees come together for an hour and a quarter to engage in joint reflection. Every week, a new topic that is current and conducive to self-reflection is put on the agenda. Recent meetings have reflected on subjects as diverse as conflict resolution, dealing with failure, company values, interpersonal communication, bureaucracy, IT innovations, risk management, personal health and mindfulness. The meeting always kicks off with a short presentation to frame the subject matter, followed by self-reflection in small groups. Every group elects a facilitator who enforces ground rules that create a space where it’s safe to explore, to be authentic and vulnerable. In the confines of the small group, helped by their colleagues’ listening, people dare to dig deep and gain new insights about themselves and others. Colleagues are exposed every week to a space made safe by ground rules that invites them to truly be themselves. They learn to see each other in the light of their deep humanity, in the beauty of their strengths and vulnerability. The trust, empathy and compassion that develop in these meetings expand to permeate the whole organization

Use a conflict resolution process called the “Direct Communication and Gaining Agreement”, which supports parties in finding agreement. Mediators may be called in for support, but they cannot impose a resolution from above.

Within Morning Star, there are 23 teams (called Business Units), but no management positions and no HR department. Colleagues operate entirely on self-managing principles that were established early in its history . When the first tomato processing factory was built, Chris Rufer and the company’s first employees met to define how they wanted to work together. They decided that two basic social values should inspire every management practice at Morning Star: individuals should never use force against other people and they should honor their commitments. These values are at the heart of the company’s conflict resolution process, which is described in great detail in the “Colleague Principles”. This is a core document outlining Morning Star’s self-managing practices. The conflict resolution process (called “Direct Communication and Gaining Agreement”), applies to any type of disagreement. This could be a difference of opinion about a technical decision, an interpersonal conflict or a breach of values. Specifically, it can be used in performance issues when one colleague believes that another is not pulling his weight.

Whatever the topic, the process starts with one person asking another to gain agreement: In a first phase, they sit together and try to sort it out privately. The initiator has to make a clear request (not a judgment, not a demand), and the other person has to respond clearly to the request (with a “yes,” a “no,” or a counterproposal).

If they can’t find a solution agreeable to both of them, they nominate a colleague they both trust to act as a mediator. The colleague supports the parties in finding agreement but cannot impose a resolution.

If mediation fails, a panel of topic-relevant colleagues is convened. The panel’s role, again, is to listen and help shape agreement. It cannot force a decision, but usually carries enough moral weight for matters to come to a conclusion.

In an ultimate step, Chris Rufer, the founder and president, can be called into the panel, to further reinforce the panel’s moral weight. Since the disagreement is private, all parties are expected to respect confidentiality during and after the processes. Of course, this confidentiality also applies to the two persons at the heart of the conflict. They must resolve their disagreement between themselves and are discouraged from spreading the conflict by enlisting support and building rival factions.

Clear ground rules have been written to create a safe environment and constructively managing conflict and anger within the context of self-managing teams.

Each of RHD’s programs is run by a self-managing team, with an average of 20 and at most 50 people. Units, as these teams are called, are encouraged to develop their own sense of purpose, pride, and identity. Units are responsible for their entire operation. Central staff at headquarters is kept to a minimum. Specialist staff can counsel teams, but the final decision is kept in the unit. At RHD, teams have a team leader (called “Unit Director”). Unit Directors have no power to impose decisions and cannot unilaterally hire or fire anybody.

RHD is explicitly founded on a number of basic assumptions about people and work, including that: 1) all people are of equal human worth, 2) people are essentially good unless proven otherwise, and 3) there is no single way to manage corporate issues well.

RHD has developed a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities for Employees and Consumers. The first two articles spell out RHD’s objective of creating a safe environment and constructively managing conflict and anger. The organisation has identified several basic assumptions, which guide operations. One is that there are multiple “right” ways or paths we can follow in making decisions. Thus there is no one “true” or “absolute” reality. Each person in a situation holds his/her own view of reality and his/her own perspective about the most effective way to do things. Whilst conflict and difference (or disagreement) are to be expected, explosive or otherwise hostile expressions of anger are not acceptable in RHD. As a member of the RHD community, it is important to be able to do two things: a) Separate from our own need to be “right” in order to hear and respect others’ realities and perspectives: and, b) Differentiate between thoughts (what’s going on inside your head) and behaviors (what you do or say).

The document goes on to spell out in detail five unacceptable expressions of hostility. The first, “demeaning speech and behavior”, is described in the following terms: Demeaning speech and behavior involves any verbal or nonverbal behavior that someone experiences as undermining of that person’s self-esteem and implies that he/she is less than worthy as a human being. Such behaviors include, but are not limited to, name-calling, ridicule, sarcasm, or other actions which “put down” people. Demeaning a person with such physical behaviors as rolling one’s eyes when the person speaks or otherwise negating her importance as a member of the community is also unacceptable. Anyone encountering such hostile behavior has the right and responsibility to surface it as an issue. Other expressions of hostility include ”negative triangulated messages”, “threat of abandonment”, “disconfirming the other person’s reality” and “intimidation/explosion” are defined in an equally precise manner.

“Above” the teams, there are no middle managers, but rather hub leaders who support a number of units. Hub leaders expect to be kept informed of major existing or potential problems. While they may advise or help, the responsibility for resolving problems stays with the unit.

Conflict is handled collaboratively within the team structure, sometimes with the help of a regional coach or mediator.

At Buurtzorg , nurses work in teams of 10 to 12, with each team serving around 50 patients in a small, well-defined neighborhood. The team is in charge of all the tasks that, in similar organisations, are fragmented across different departments. The initial Buurtzorg training includes techniques for conflict resolution and Nonviolent Communication developed by Marshal Rosenberg. Conflicts are worked out collaboratively within the team. For instance, when one person has lost the trust of the team, the team tries to find a mutually agreeable solution. If that doesn’t work out, the group calls in its regional coach or an external facilitator to mediate. In almost all cases, the presence of a mediator brings resolution. In some cases, the person and the team decide on some mutual commitments and give it another go. In others, after some deliberation, the person comes to see that trust is irrevocably broken and understands it is time to leave. If no agreement can be found, as a last chance to try to settle the matter, the team members can ask Jos de Blok, the founder, to mediate. In the rare cases, where even this fails, they can ask him to put an end to the person’s contract (legally, he is the only one who can do so).

A simple process to resolve conflict in an adult way

https://reddico.co.uk/uploads/2021/04/conflict-resolution-04.jpg

Step 1: Direct conversation Once you know what you want to talk about, and how you’re going to approach the situation, it’s important to talk directly to the other person. This conversation is crucial in helping to give an overview of where you’re coming from, but it’s also an opportunity to listen to the other person as well. If you need any support in addressing the issue, or how to raise it, you can speak to your coach or team conflict mediator, who may be able to help you identify opportunities for this. In many cases, having this clear, honest and upfront conversation can help to resolve the issue, and leave you with an action plan going forward.

It’s important this first step is taken in resolving the issue – talking directly to the other person helps both parties feel heard and appreciated, paving the way for a resolution.

Step 2: Mediation Following a direct conversation in Step 1, the initial issue has been communicated and both parties should have had the opportunity to talk and listen. If, following this, next steps and a resolution haven’t been agreed (or the issue has resurfaced in the future), you may want to escalate to Step 2. The key to this step is identifying a mediator both parties trust, who can review the situation, hear from both parties and give any thoughts about the issue. It’s important to remember, the mediator can’t resolve the issue. They’re simply there to provide a different perspective on the situation. However, the mediator can help keep discussions on track and ensure conversations are kept to the facts. If the two parties are unable to find a mutual mediator, they may each choose a mediator they trust (this could be a coach or team mediator, for example). For clarification, the mediator isn’t on someone’s ‘side’ – they’re chosen to review the issue and provide unbiased thoughts.

Step 3: Designated arbitrator In the majority of situations, a direct conversation or mediation session will resolve any issues of conflict. However, if the conversation remains deadlocked, a designated arbitrator is required to join the discussion and hear from all parties. If a resolution is unable to be made, the arbitrator will (as a last resort) make a final decision. Ultimately, all disputes must come to an end. The designated arbitrator would likely be Reddico’s Managing Director.