Dealing with Difficult Interactions
How do you handle difficult interactions with others in the workplace? Do you follow a process? If so, what are the steps and have they been effective?
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I agree. I have found that in the business of education you must be a good listener. I would start by inviting the individual into my office and as they enter the room I take great care in reading their body language. If I can sense they are uneasy I will re assure them by taking the opportunity to thank them for participating in the conversation that is about to take place. I then follow up with non threatening phrase to into the dialogue, like "I understand their have been some difficulties between the two of you and I am here to help you both work through them". I would then proceed on by again asking in an un obtrusive manner for one of them to begin explaining the situation. As they tell their side of the story I watch for body language and continuously confirm what the are saying, sometimes by repeating it back to them. This gives the individual reassurance that I understand what they are trying to communicate. I would then proceed by asking the other party to express their view of the situation. Once I have confirmed both sides of the story I then introduce some instances which could have possible occurred during the breakdown. For example perhaps a phrase was taken out of context or simply miss interpreted by the other party. I also re assure them that honest mistakes can happen and that even I am susceptible to them. After milling through the conversation I would conclude with asking them “how do you think we can improve on this so that it does not occur again." At this point I listen to their ideas and then ask them both to come up with a workable plan and in conclusion I as to see them the following week to make sure their differences have been ironed out. I find giving the power to the employees really makes a difference in how the problems are resolved.
I appreciate your plan of action with these difficult scenerios. YOu are on the right track. The key to success with these situations is your approach and keeping the emotion to a minimum.
Nice approach!
I believe it is important to stay positive while dealing with the conflict between other staff members. Having guidelines for everyone to follow is necessary. Following a step by step process is important, so that things do not get out of hand. I have noticed that some effective steps include having one on one time with each of the parties involved, so that they can sort through their feelings about the situation, then allowing for an attempt to compromise, usually can get things going in a more positive direction.
Great response. Your response always needs to maintain calm and not to raise to the level of emotion that may exist. What would you do if someone was yelling at you and an another employee?
I would attempt to separate the parties involved, so that the conflict does not get worse. I would let the person that is yelling, take a moment away from the office to cool down. Once, the yelling has stopped, I would ask the angry person to explain his reason for being upset and try to come up with a compromise between the two.
It is always good to separate the parties to neutral areas. This is the part where good communication is to listen to each party. If the parties or one them was inappropriate with their communication for actions you explain a better way of handling this in the future. But first listen to what they have to say and approach the guidance after they have reduced their emotion.
Have you had this happen to you?
When I first became the manager of a group of 10 people, a conflict between two people was brought to my attention. At this point it had been going on for some time and had started to affect others in the group. When it was brought to my attention by another person not involved in the conflict, I asked if they had said anything to the people in question. The response was a puzzled "no". I suggested that they try speaking to the people and letting them know that their feud was affecting others. This worked wonderfully and probably even better than if I had stepped in (especially at the time as a new manager of an existing team). I know that this won't always be the answer but I am a firm believer of letting people resolve their own conflicts if at all possible.
I'm now facing an issue where I want to encourage comraderie but at the same time discourage the formation of cliques. Cliques are starting to form in my group and is never good for day to day productivity. Any suggestions?
It is natural to have people seek out people that are more alike than different. Diversity is very healthy for an organization and helps with creativity and developing fo tolerance for differences in others. The best way to encourgage others to strike out and join in with others is to provide working and extra curricula activities that would include all the working constiuents. I have had opportunities as a manager to provide these activities at work by creating what I called circles of influence. These were made up with employees selected by me. Each circle had specific challenges to work on to report back on their views. The assignments had no real right or wrong answers but did require them employees to work with each other. Outcomes were very healthy and synergism was created by the people working together.
Outside activities always help when you can involve families. Spouses and children have a need to see what their loved ones are doing at work and who are their colleagues. Picnics, tickets to local events, sports events, fund raisers for breast cancer etc.
People generally want to belong it is our job to broaden their horizons by opening the doors to more opportunity for friends. This makes for a much more productive work environment.
I agree with you about solving work conflicts if possible at the lowest level in managment as possible.
I find the instruction of "listening" very helpful, especially when I feel challenged by the individual. This allows me to have time to monitor my own reactions.
Except for the owner of the company who is not often present, all of the staff and managers report to me. So I find that when I have a defensive reaction to an employee or try to push things to resolution, that it has a large negative effect within the whole organization. Being in the position of authority puts my actions under the spotlight, and if I am defensive or not fair, then it is the topic of converstation. It is as if a wave of distrust and "proof" that authority in general can't be trusted goes out and effects all things, with some specific folks eager to infomally lead the group in that direction.
I am finding it helpful lately to take more time informally in different moments during the day to get to know the folks who seem to me like they are dissatisfied or seperate (as they tend not to share about their feelings at our staff meetings). By my building more of a one-to one dialogue/relationship with them, they seem to feel more seen and appreciated, and they also develop more personal accountability for the relatioship we have together. This is much better then them staying away from me, and my trying to counter their negativity without actually knowing what it is about.
I have a conflict going on now between a manager and one of their staff people, and the manager wants to bring me in to meet with them together. I have been reflecting on the course material and am planning to talk with the manager about first steps clarifing their own issues and motivations, emotions and self-esteem issues, before they meet with the staff person. I think they can do this on their own as a first step, and would be better than bringing me in right away. I know the staff person enough to know thay would feel like they were "turned in" by their manager if they were brought in to meet with me first.
I have dealt with it in the past by bringing the parties involved together and have them listen to each others issues and what has brought us to where we are at. Acknowledge their point and then make them see that we all have the same goals at heart. It is a difficult process because not everyone is receptive to others opinions, but in the end if the parties involved can arrive at a solution, you've won the battle.
