Hypothetical Conflict Resolution

Mediation is Great for Conflict Resolution

I am a firm believer in mediation, “A neutral third party facilitates communication between the conflicting parties so that they may work out their own mutually acceptable agreement” (Abigail & Cahn 2011, p.195), for conflict resolution as well as listening.  First and foremost, listening or being attentive has to be applied in any type of conversation. 

Without listening or paying attention to someone who is trying to communicate, whether verbally or non-verbally, the message may easily be lost in translation.  Under some circumstances, listening doesn’t work.  The scenario where an employee is unprofessional and considered hostile to his/her environment is a situation where just listening to their side may not be the best approach.  I think that for an employee, or any individual for that matter, who is resistant and confrontational when receiving feedback should automatically sit down with a mediator.  The employee, mediator, and supervisor should sit in a neutral area and discuss the situation in private. 

Word choice and tone in the delivery of the chosen words are also an important factor in resolving the issue.  Choosing phrases that cause immediate blame rather than phrases such as, “I have heard that there are issues with your work performance, is everything okay?” may set the person up to automatically get defensive and therefore the situation can further escalate with no hope for a positive resolution.  By giving the employee the opportunity to share whether something is going on in their life which may be affecting their work behavior the supervisor is not directly placing blame.  It would also be wise to explain that the meeting is to address and resolve any issues with minimal discipline.  If the employee thinks he/she is in trouble but doesn’t see where they went wrong the situation may escalate. 

It’s unfortunate that people are almost required to cater to one another’s feelings because most individuals will over-react without trying to understand the situation but it is a reality.  If catering to those individual’s personality quirks helps to resolve conflict then it is the best strategy. 

The reason I think it is best to have a mediator present is to diffuse the situation as soon as possible so there is minimal frustration or misunderstanding.  A mediator may give the employee comfort by calmly explaining what the supervisor is failing to effectively communicate. Sometimes an outsider can see clearer than the individuals who are emotionally involved.  It is better to have a mediator and not use them to not have one and regret the decision at a later time. 

If the employee needed to be fired due to issues that arose during the meeting, the mediator would then serve as a witness to the dialogue.  If the employee decided to fight being fired, that witness testimony may help to back up the supervisor’s decision and further protect the company.  It is also important to have a back-up plan for conflict resolution so if one method isn’t working, another can be tried as soon as possible. 

References:

Abigail, R.A., & Cahn, D.D. (2007). Managing Conflict Through Communication (4^th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.