Let’s admit, after covid we all became more emotional, quick-tempered and, it seems, more stupid (I judge by myself, but there are Lancet study), in addition, a stressful information pumping from the media occurs in the background, and all this ultimately results in conflicts.
Let’s define the objects and subjects of our study:
– object: conflict;
– subjects of the conflict: party A (apparently right), party B (apparently wrong), conflictologist (a leader who was unlucky enough to read about conflict management).
The existing methodology instructs the conflictologist to give feedback to employees A and B, carefully infiltrating the understanding of the essence of the dispute.
To set goals or give criticism to employees, it is customary to build a dialogue using the burger method. The essence of the method is that in order not to offend a person, he is given a task according to the template:
– a layer of flattery;
– a pill of criticism;
– a proposal to improve, which, ideally, the subject of criticism will treat as his own decision;
An example of a burger statement of a task for an employee:
-you are a brilliant cobol programmer, one of those that walk themselves;
and at the same time you format the project with tabs, in which since 1986 everyone has been coding with spaces;
I’d like you to update our company formatting conventions in the know and notify all subcontractors, but is there any other solution?
– I can not format with tabs or puncture the tires of your tarantass
Note that the methodology has problems even without Russian realities:
The conflictologist acts as a guru, an unbiased judge in the conflict, but for this you need to have either charisma or authority for A and B in the topic of the dispute. Otherwise, it looks like idle curiosity, and moreover, you can suddenly become a party to the conflict: if the disputants launch misinformation in the company, spread rumors, and despite the neutral position, the conflict specialist is in it.
For the sake of equality and brotherhood, the conflictologist does not look for the culprit in the situation, but in fact, blamingstorming is not bad. In engineering, often someone is still right, and this is often computable: offhand, you can offer risk management of the consequences of actions according to plan A and B (see Vyatkin V.N. Risk management) or application of mathematics Nash equilibriumif there is a benefit to the disputants.
The processed debater can refuse the burger, moreover, if employees A and B have at least some broad outlook, they will know about the burger technique, and here the guru is already in an absurd position: you can play the burger in the opposite direction, or by unwinding it on components, or endlessly delaying the issuance of “his” solution, which the guru is eager to hear.
From myself I will say, having been in all the roles and conflicts and issuing feedback, the application of the practices of “effective facilitation” to those who are aware of them is perceived as a careless attitude to the problem.
And what to do?
With humanitarian and ethical disputes – I honestly xs, everything there is so sublime and on emotions that there will be no advice from me except to listen to the stream of consciousness from me.
From what worked for me in practice in an engineering environment – gather your teeth into a fist and be honest, describe your motivation and the conditions in which you make a decision, in 90% of cases normal argumentation leads to success. Burger works on students through the third year.