The three-step model, starts with Step 1 “Define the Problem.” This involves acknowledging the conflict, establishing common ground or goals, such as ‘we both want what is best for the customer’ and separating the problem from the people. Next, Step 2 ‘Explore and Evaluate Alternatives’ is a “diverge,” brainstorming phase where many different alternatives are investigated and assessed. Lastly, Step 3 “Select Best Alternative,” is the “converge” step where we decide on the best way forward.
These tools are, at best, direction arrows on a tricky journey. They can help us navigate to a solution, but they do not replace the hard work of actively listening to both sides of the conflict and empathizing with different viewpoints. That takes an investment of patience and empathy. So too does the following steps of encouraging people to let go of personal attachment to ideas or feelings.
Conflicts are inescapable. At best, they are signs of a vibrant, robust team that is happy to test and improve their ideas and choices. However, if arguments become more personal, they also develop a harmful and counterproductive impact. Team members disengage and distance to protect themselves. Then ideas are not well tested, and blind-spots and problems occur.
The key is to care, to get engaged, listen and try to diagnose the conflicts occurring. Maybe do a reality test by following up individually afterward. Ask, “You and Preeta seemed to be having a heated debate about the design. Did you come to an agreement you are OK with?” Knowing when to let it go and when to step in is half the battle. Using these tools can help and provide some guidance for conflict resolution.