¿Cómo puede dirigir una discusión grupal sobre resolución de conflictos?

Understanding the cause of Conflict is the key to resolving the conflict. The cause of conflict not just gives the person to study the problem more empathetically and strategically but also to look for a customized approach. When it comes to conflict resolutions- one size does not fit all therefore it is best to go for variety of strategies.

Before we can define the purpose of a conflict conversation, we have to first understand the problem. Far too often, we step into conflict attempting to outline outcomes without fully understanding how the issue impacts all involved. Conflict resolution, especially in a group context, must begin with defining and clarifying the problem by exploring different perceptions and perspectives of the problem. Only then can we be sure that the expected outcomes are reasonable for all involved. Without this crucial step, groups may find themselves solving pain points stemming from bigger issues, but not an actually uncover the root issue.

Prior planning for topics of discussion are a requirement if a successful outcome is desired. This can include anonymous surveys, 1:1 quick meets, or incognito Teams discussions. The more information gathered gives a clearer picture of the true underlying issues and allows leaders to narrow down and address the pain points.

A major issue in this context is also defining (or understanding) our mandate, which is linked to our role within a team or an organisation and the expectations we have and others have (from us). All too often team conflict deliberations risk becoming transgressive when this step is undervalued or skipped.

In my experience it is essential to define the nature of the conflict. Is is a structural problem, a strategic conflict or is it human needs centred? If the conflict is due to conflicting needs amongst team members the first step would be to assess the depth of the conflict, and depending how much it has hardened, it may be advisable to bring in an outside mediator. If it is working towards a goal and the goal has been communicated already, whether mandated from upper management, or else, it can be done through good facilitation, making everyone heard and co-own the process, and bring their best self to the process to achieve the goal. Structural conflict are to be assessed and needs or worries of team members taken seriously.

As you have already had individual meetings, ask questions in a way that people from other perspectives will also see those issues as essential problems. Don't forget, if someone does not see an issue as an important problem, they wouldn't be willing to solve it.

Ensuring psychological safety where everyone are safe to talk their mind out is vital. Whenever people feel safe to talk, they will do the talking. When people are talking, validate their feelings. When emotions starts to rise up during the discussion, facilitators need to slow down by going back to the objective of the discussion.

Topics and ideas outside of the main discussion are bound to come up during a resolution conversation. One effective strategy facilitators can use to capture those 'bunny trail' ideas is "The Parking Lot" method. As secondary ideas come up, facilitators can capture those ideas on a flip chart or dry erase board, indicating that everyone can come back to that issue once the primary issue is resolved. This does two things. One, it acknowledges the issue which was raised, giving the person who brought it up validation. It also makes it clear that the facilitator intends to keep the main thing the main thing. By limiting topic drift during conversations, clear & relevant resolutions can be easier to come by.

Setting rules is a nice but often inadequate rule. In mediation practice it is encouraged to propose only very basic ground rules that are essential to the process. All other rules should come from the participants (or in this case the team members) themselves. This will ensure that the rules are understood and endorsed by everyone and that the participants feel committed to them. Otherwise we risk imposing rules that are not useful or that create unnecessary formalities that team members do not understand or feel connected to.

One common obstacle facilitators may face when leading group discussions on conflict is an unwilling participant. It may feel appropriate to force participation in the process, however, it's critical to remember that resolution can only occur when the parties involved are reasonable, rational, and ready for the process. Psychological safety, personal readiness, and timelines are all subjective factors that will influence when & how individuals will participate in a resolution conversation. For this reason, facilitators must remember that their job is to set the table and to ensure everyone who wants to "eat" has a seat at the table and an opportunity to. They can't, however, force anyone to eat.