11. Dealing with conflict

What this is about

Working together means touching other people’s interests and feelings, and conflicts follow. What matters is dealing with them so that afterwards something is settled that was open before.

The guiding question

What kind of ending is right for this conflict?

Conflicts can end in different ways: by giving in, by meeting halfway, by leaving things be, by prevailing, or by finding a new solution together. None of these endings is always right. Which one fits depends on the subject, the relationship, the time available and how much the parties care about continuing to work together. A conflict brought to a proper end leaves something behind: a misunderstanding cleared up, a better rule, a deeper understanding of one another. A conflict that merely stops will come back.

What helps now

Knowing the conflict styles without believing in them. A widely used classification, going back to Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann, distinguishes five ways of handling conflict. Accommodating: one side gives way because the relationship matters more than the issue. Compromising: both give something up, often sensible when time is short or an interim solution will do. Avoiding: the conflict is left alone, which can be wise when the matter is minor or everyone needs time to cool off. Competing: one side prevails, sometimes necessary when a quick decision is required. Collaborating: the parties look together for a solution that none of them would have found alone. This is the most demanding path, because it needs trust and time. The classification helps people recognise their own behaviour. It is not a scheme for solving conflicts, and most people switch between styles depending on the situation.

Needs before solutions. In almost every conflict, the parties propose solutions that exclude each other. Progress comes from asking why someone wants that particular solution. Behind positions lie needs, such as security, recognition, predictability or influence, and these exclude each other far less often than positions do. Knowing them often opens solutions nobody had considered. This includes letting feelings be expressed before solutions are discussed. As long as anger or hurt has not been heard, every proposal will be read as an attack.

Keeping an eye on escalation. Conflicts develop in stages. Friedrich Glasl described a model with nine: in the first three a solution in which everyone wins is still possible, in the middle ones it is about winning and losing, and in the last the parties accept their own losses in order to harm the other. The higher the stage, the less the parties can resolve the conflict alone. Recognising the stage means choosing the right means: an open conversation, moderation by a trusted person, mediation, or in the end a decision by a third party.

Agreed paths. A cooperation that settled at the outset how conflicts will be handled does not have to argue about it when the time comes. An escalation clause may provide, for example, that those directly involved negotiate first, then those responsible at management level, then a mediator, and only after that an arbitral tribunal or a state court decides.

The typical mistake

The typical mistake is dealing with conflicts too late. People hope they will pass, keep quiet about irritations and quietly collect evidence. When the conflict breaks out, it is two or three stages further on, and a factual question has become a question of trust. And some take the first serious conflict as proof that the cooperation has failed. Usually it only shows that the cooperation needs to develop. What conflict reveals about acting together is explored on Conflict in the Understanding section.

Online

Online, conflicts escalate faster in text messages than in conversation. Tone is missing, pauses are read as intent, and every sentence can be read in whatever mood the reader happens to be in. So it is worth switching early from writing to talking, as described on the page Good practice for working together online. In a conflict, one more thing is needed: after the conversation, one person summarises the outcome in writing and the other confirms it. Otherwise the dispute starts again over the summary.

Online mediation is a form of mediation in its own right, not a substitute. Each party sits in familiar surroundings, nobody is a guest in the other’s space, and separate sessions can take place in separate rooms without anyone waiting in a corridor. Shorter sessions at closer intervals are easier to arrange than full days on site. It needs a brief sound and image check beforehand, an understanding that nothing is recorded and nobody listens in unseen, and at the end a written version of the agreement that everyone can review at leisure. The procedure itself is unchanged: confidential, structured, voluntary and self-determined (Section 1(1) Mediation Act, MediationsG).

Law in this phase

Resolving conflicts: negotiation, mediation, arbitration and the courts in context, including the mediator’s duty of confidentiality (Section 4 MediationsG) and the suspension of limitation periods during negotiations (Section 203 German Civil Code, BGB).
Shareholders among themselves: how duties of loyalty, deadlocks and exit mechanisms frame conflicts within companies.
Cooperative clauses: how escalation, mediation and arbitration clauses are worded so that they hold in a conflict.