Here are three cases that illustrate how to resolve conflicts and enhance our leadership at any level of an organization.
Case 1. Other's problem
A) When a collaborator has a difficulty in an issue that is their responsibility, what should we do to enhance our leadership?
1. Approach.
As leader and superior, we perceive that one of our Collaborators has a difficulty. But people do not share their difficulties openly. Their messages are not clear even if asked directly.
There are telltale clues: He does not speak, he sulks, he does not smile, he is late, he is irritated, he is sarcastic, etc. They are initial indications. If we ask him, in principle, he does not answer directly but says:
- “I shouldn't have gotten up today.” “Don't worry.” “Easy, I'll do it.” “If it's not one thing, it's another.” “I've gotten up on the wrong foot.” “It's a mess,” etc.
We can assume what our Collaborator thinks or feels; but we don't know for
sure. Communication is difficult because:
- People do not feel free to say what they really think. It is difficult to put feelings into words. We hear wrong (we decode wrong). Sometimes people talk thinking about what they are going to say later and what is said now is said wrong. We hear what we want to hear, etc., etc.
2. Face the collaborator's difficulty.
A true leader, before the previous situation does not turn around and leave, but helps his Collaborator. After the brief initial message you can say:
- I would like to know how you feel. Do you mind telling me what's wrong with you? I would like to help you, if possible. I have time now. If you have it too, do you want us to talk?
3. Practice active listening.
We begin to listen carefully as indicated in the Training.
We must show evidence that we are listening because:
|
In such a way that the Collaborator perceives:
|
4. Avoid at all costs the barriers that cut communication.
- Send or order: «Do this. I hope you… Stop. Please excuse yourself. "Warn or threaten:" I warn you… Do not try… "Moralize or implore:" You should… It is your responsibility… "Advise or suggest:" It would be better… that… The correct way would be… Experience advises… »Judge, blame:« You are wrong. It is nonsense. It doesn't matter. ”Praise, flatter:“ You are smart. It has potential. He's come a long way. "Insulting, ridiculing:" You're a sloppy. He is confused. He is a square head. "Interpret, diagnose:" What you need is… You are angry because… "Reassure, feel sorry:" Tomorrow will be better. It is not too bad. After the storm comes calm. "Question:" Why did you do that? Who have you consulted with?"That reminds me that… Think on the bright side."
ACTIVE LISTENING means listening with an effort. As we know, it is quite difficult and requires practice; a lot of practice.
IN THIS ACTIVE LISTENING IT IS GOOD THAT WE REPEAT FROM TIME TO TIME WITH OTHER WORDS WHAT THE COLLABORATOR HAS SAID OR WANTED TO SAY, ALSO RECOGNIZING HIS FEELINGS.
5. With active listening we will achieve these effects:
- We will help the Collaborator to solve their problem. We will maintain RESPONSIBILITY (surprisingly effectively) always on the Collaborator. (The use of barriers shifts the responsibility to the boss.) Our Employee will become less dependent on us as a leader and more self-sufficient. We will realize that it is impossible for us to understand all the complexities of our Employees. The Employee will find the solution itself. means that we agree with him. Saying "it looks like you are desperate" is very different from saying "I agree that it is a desperate case." Perhaps the difficulties that require action on our part, and the decisions that we will have to make to tackle bigger problems, are revealed.
6. As leaders we must bear in mind that:
- This is a very powerful problem solving technique, even if it doesn't seem like it. We have to listen only when we have time. Let's not do it if we don't have it or we are not in the mood. But let's try to have it and be it. A superior must always give the impression that he has time for his collaborators; especially a leader. There are many situations to apply this technique that greatly reinforces the RESPONSIBILITY of the Collaborator and maintains it over him. Recognizing and expressing feelings increases the productivity and effectiveness of the person and the group. It greatly facilitates the development of its Collaborators.
7. Application example. (Look slowly at the leader's responses.)
Collaborator. Can I speak to you for a moment?
Leader. Definitely. I have half an hour until the Planning Committee. It's enough?
C. Yes, plenty. It is not a complicated problem but it is bugging me.
L. I see that it's starting to bother you, right?
C. Yes, indeed. Paco, the control, puzzles me. I don't know what to think of him. Maybe I don't know how to treat it and I suppose you could advise me.
L. Wow, you're in trouble.
C. Yes. It is a typical case. Very smart. With a brilliant title. Fresh out of the University. It has an answer for everything. But whenever I make a suggestion it finds two flaws and some reason to pound it.
L. It is certainly frustrating that he opposes everything you suggest.
C. Yes, always. And then on top of that she comes up with two or three ideas that are believed to be better than mine; and yours are idiots.
It almost always suggests something different or totally different from what we are doing. In fact, with your ideas it would be necessary to completely change our current systems.
L. In other words, you see his ideas as innovative and daring and you think that you should deviate a lot from the usual way of doing in your section.
C. Well, I am not bothered by constructive suggestions. But they make me feel that our way of doing things is obsolete, as if we were not progressives or something similar.
L. I understand. You don't like being made to feel that way.
C. Sure; These college educated people think they know everything. They believe they are gods and they believe that the experience of years is useless.
L. You dislike having your experience devalued and you are sick of being pressured to change things.
C. Of course I do! I have to admit that some of his ideas are not bad. I tell you that he is intelligent; but she doesn't appreciate my experience and assumes that we do everything wrong.
L. You value some of his ideas; but you also want him to appreciate you.
C. I don't need you to like me! We all have problems. Who does not? But we don't have time to solve everything.
L. You know where improvements could be made but you think you don't have time to attend to all matters.
C. Yes. Maybe we could schedule a special meeting one of these afternoons after work.
L. Yes; it is a good possibility.
C. That way I would not be the only one who would have to defend a lot of things against Paco. Other colleagues in the group could convince him.
L. You want your team to help you solve this difficulty.
C. Yes; I'd like to. We may also initiate some changes that you agree to.
L. You are thinking of killing two birds with one stone.
C. Yes. Perhaps more meetings were necessary. How about we schedule the first meeting for next week?
L. It certainly seems like a good idea. Ahead.
C. Okay, I'm going to work. I have pending to think a solution on the classifiers. Thank you for advising me.
L. You don't have to. Good luck!
Looking at the leader's responses, what conclusions can you draw from this conversation?
Case 2. Our problem
B) When we have a difficulty due to an issue, consequence of someone's inappropriate way of acting; collaborator, boss, supplier, collateral, etc., what should we do to enhance our leadership?
1. Approach.
What should we do if:
- Antonio works slowly and delays us in our work. Our boss does not inform us of things we need to know. Eugenio is always late for meetings. Pepe takes poorly the telephone calls of Clients. Pedro never finishes the work on the date. Juan has excessive sales turnover?
When the other owns the difficulty, we must actively listen and be good recipients.
But when the owners of the problem are us, due to the inadequate performance of another, it is we who must express ourselves and be good emitters.
We have to be able to deal with people.
But how?
2. Example of what we should not do (and maybe we will do sometime).
«In the monthly meetings, Paco systematically interrupts him constantly, greatly reducing the team's effectiveness. Today he has done it again, so he decides to confront him after the meeting, and he says:
- Send or order: "Paco, let others say what they think and don't talk so much!" Warn or threaten: "I warn you that if you continue to interrupt, everyone will get mad at you." Moralize or implore: "Paco, You should, please, speak less in meetings out of elementary courtesy. "Advise or suggest:" I suggest that you do not interrupt as much in meetings as it would be better for everyone. "Reason:" Being realistic, you have interrupted me 24 times… »Judge or blame:« You are to blame for the meetings taking so long. Couldn't you shut up more? ”Praise, flattery:“ Paco, you're a smart guy and when you think, very effective. Why don't you interrupt less in the meetings to be effective there too? ”Insulting, ridiculing:“ You look like a know-it-all Cricket. Why don't you keep your mouth shut in meetings? »Interpret, diagnose:«You need a training course in the field of behavior. Do you know why? »Reassure, feel sorry:« Although today's meeting has been disastrous due to your interruptions, I hope that… »Question:« What's wrong? Why do you constantly interrupt? 12. Joking: "You remind me of my mother-in-law, do you know why?"
3. Why should this not be done?
What do all the previous messages have in common? They make the mistake of focusing on each other!
They directly harm the other because:
- They make him feel guilty, he notices the lack of respect towards him, they lower his self-esteem, provoke resentment and antagonism, they point the accusing finger at him.
In reality, in most cases guilt is undeserved because people rarely realize that their behavior is unacceptable to others.
4. What should be done?
LAUNCH MESSAGES ME!
THE RIGHT THING IS TO SPEAK IN 1ST PERSON OF THE SINGULAR ME AND NOT IN 2ND: YOU.
(In Training we have seen the technique of asking intelligent and pleasant questions. Here we now see the technique of the I-message).
For example:
- "When I am not informed about this, I wonder if…" "It bothers me a lot to find unanswered Client letters because…" A cold sweat enters every time I analyze the costs of your section X… ”“ I was totally disappointed to see the design your department made and I cannot explain why no corrective action has been taken ”.
IT MUST BE SAID:
- THE BEHAVIOR THAT ONE FINDS INACCEPTABLE WITH ACCURACY. WHAT HE FEELS FRANKLY. THE EFFECT OR CONSEQUENCES THAT HAS ON ONE SAME
BEHAVIOR.
This systematic:
- It must be practiced. You have to dare to reach the other to reflect. At first she becomes timid and mechanically, not reacting against the person whose behavior complicates her, even when she is justified by the problem that creates her. Only the error must be attacked, respecting the person who errs, it leads to the decision being made by her. We must not forget it. A message-I is a request for help; It is to this that it owes its great effectiveness. It is a good weapon to find an acceptable solution for both, since we are saying: I am a human being with problems and feelings like the others.
ANYWAY, before a message-I will not seldom feel hurt, defensive or resistant. Normally, people dislike being told that their behavior is unacceptable, even when it is told well (I-messages).
If the person begins to justify himself, it is useless to continue with I-messages; we will have to use the gear change.
5. Change gears.
What to do then when the other person acknowledges the impact?
CHANGE OF MARCH FROM «MESSAGE-ME» to «ACTIVE LISTENING»
Arguably, "active listening" is the smooth, fast long gear, while the "I-message" is the hardest and most difficult short uphill gear. When you change gear from "I-message" to "active listening" it happens that:
- Given the Collaborator's justification, we understand and accept (without agreeing) the Collaborator's feelings and reasons, which predisposes us to understand each other. It helps to dissipate the Collaborator's emotional reaction, which paves the way. We can also better understand the position of the Collaborator. Collaborator.
However, if we disagree, after active listening it may be appropriate to repeat the modified I-message again and so on.
A key point for a leader is to get used to and handle shifting gears easily (requires training). The short march (I-message) is necessary to highlight the leader's needs and the long march (active listening) is equally necessary because people need a lot of support and a lot of understanding, which is also effective as preventive work.
6. Application example.
Superior.Paco, I asked you to come because I have a problem. I thought that after the talk we had regarding the departure time, you would have understood what our policy was and you intended to respect it. So yesterday I was surprised that you left before five thirty.
Collaborator. Antonio, the truth is that I did not plan to leave before. In fact, for 3 weeks I have been punctual.
S. Yes, I was recently observing that. But yesterday, apparently, something special happened.
C. Yesterday at noon the person who lives next to my house called me and took me. She told me that due to a medical problem she had to leave at a quarter past five and that if I was not at that time I would have to leave without me.
S. It put you in a bind, didn't it?
C. Yes. Once he couldn't take me, I had to catch the train and the bus and it took me two and a half hours to get home.
S. So that alternative does not interest you.
C. No, because going with my friend takes only half an hour.
S. Can I understand that yesterday you hesitated between losing two and a half hours or respecting our policy?
C. Yes. And I looked for you after lunch. But you were out and I couldn't find you.
S. You hoped I would approve of your departure if you found me.
C. I was sure you would.
S. So in principle you thought it was very important not to lose that opportunity to be taken home, to the point of contravening politics?
C. Well, it was a rare emergency that only happens to me once in a while. A few minutes does not seem to me to be so important. I am seldom here working an hour before check-in.
S. I understand and understand your reasoning.
But as you know, the possibility of flexible hours was ruled out and the policy refers to arriving on time and not leaving before the established hours. And both aspects must be observed.
C. Well, I will try not to let it happen again.
S. I thought so in our previous talk in this regard. But it has happened again. Can you think of anything to prevent it from happening again? This policy should not be contravened unless there are deeper reasons.
C. I could make sure you knew I was leaving early if the friend who is taking me has to leave early again.
S. That solution does not satisfy me because I cannot authorize that type of emergency.
C. Not even for 10 or 15 minutes?
S. Not even for that.
C. It seems to me that the two and a half hours that I lose for 10 or 15 minutes is excessive and that policy does not seem reasonable to me.
S. Maybe you think that if you respected politics most of the time, it would be nice if you skipped it from time to time.
C. The truth is yes.
S. If the forty people who work in the Section did that, many afternoons someone would be leaving earlier and I don't think it was fair.
C. Perhaps I could find someone else here to take me home on those days.
S. That could be solved, right?
C. Yes. How could I find that person?
S. Mr. Fernández has the list in the Personnel Department.
C. Okay, I'm coming up today.
S. Magnificent. I'm glad you have definitely resolved this.
conclusion
The leader's understanding of the Collaborator's problem is not as important as the Collaborator's understanding of their own problem.
People are very complicated and it is almost impossible to acquire a complete understanding of what moves us.
It is key that the leader understands his own feelings and ideas and communicates them with the "gear shift." It is less important (against what is usually tried to practice) to understand the personality of the Collaborators, what they are like and what they like or don't like.
Case 3. (Our problem and one or others)
c) When there is a conflict between us and another: collaborator, boss, collateral, supplier, etc., what should we do to enhance our leadership?
1. Approach.
Conflicts are inevitable in human relationships. If we are bosses, we will surely be involved in numerous conflicts with a wide diversity of people.
These conflicts are serious, unpleasant, and disintegrating.
If we aspire to be leaders we must:
DO:
1º, A PREVENTIVE WORK:
- Take initiative and action when someone is concerned, without waiting, even when that behavior is not unacceptable. In other words, take initiative in the face of signs and "weak signals" that could later be a source of serious problems. Often a few minutes spent listening to a person works wonders. Launching preventive "I-messages" (in addition to asking smart and engaging questions) that reveal what we value, think, believe, or need BEFORE any unacceptable behavior could occur, for example:
"I think courtesy when talking on the phone is a prerequisite for good customer relations," or "Today I need the full day to finish this report," etc.
2º, A CORRECTIVE WORK:
Whatever we do, conflicts will arise. The non-existence of conflicts is not a symptom of organizational health (on the contrary). It is a symptom of health to face them and resolve them well.
When conflicts are avoided or not faced ("we are a great happy family", "we have no problems", etc.), resentments accumulate and there is general underlying discontent.
2. Alternatives for the solution of conflicts and problems.
There are 4, generally already known to the reader:
- ALTERNATIVE 1. I WIN, YOU WIN. It is the one that should always occur. Sometimes it can cost a lot of time and work. But it is the only correct alternative. Everyone must always win. (If in a negotiation of 40 people 38 win and 2 lose, someone loses; and that is incorrect). The only effective approach in the short, medium and long term is the I win-You win. ALTERNATIVE 2. I WIN, YOU LOSE. The one that occurs most frequently. It is the most comfortable, fast and expeditious on the part of those who have the greatest influence. ALTERNATIVE 3. I LOSE, YOU WIN. It is rare to see. Only when the manager abandons his responsibility or behaves improperly. It ends up resenting and the effects may end up being worse than in ALTERNATIVE 2. ALTERNATIVE 4. I LOSE, YOU LOSE. It is not logical; but, incredibly, it appears with some frequency.Especially in union negotiations.
3. Definition of the possible types of influence of a manager over his collaborators.
There are 4 possible types:
1. POWER. Coercive influence. A person uses it or has it when it influences others because:
- You can punish them by depriving them of what they need. ("If you don't do what I want…") You can reward them by giving them what they need. ("I will reward them with such, if you…").
This is a type of harmful influence that a leader never uses and should never use. This influence of power is the cornerstone of all discussion in relationships with one another.
Throughout our approach to leadership it is the point where discussion becomes more difficult.
2. AUTHORITY. Legitimate influence of the manager by reason of the position he occupies and his position in the organization. It obeys the description of its objectives, work and responsibilities.
It does not generate resistance or resentment (unlike power) because everyone accepts and understands such influence as necessary for the performance of the required work.
3. KNOWLEDGE. Influence others by their experience, specialization and training. "He speaks with authority" or "he is an authority in this matter" (although here, for clarification, we will say "authority" when we refer to the one defined in the previous point). This influence is very positive for a manager and a leader.
4. LEADERSHIP. According to our definition, it is the most intimate influence on others, since it is the one that increases their level of self-esteem the most. It is the most opposed to power, which always lowers it.
4. The cost of power.
A large majority of managers do not reach leaders for not understanding the terrible price they pay to meet their needs, forgetting the needs of others (I win, you lose).
It is due to not being able to bear the tension and anxiety of the conflicts that they consider as a symptom of their incapacity and a sign of imminent defeat when «not everything is under control».
For punishments and rewards to be the sources from which the power of a person is derived, it is necessary that the Collaborators are highly dependent on the manager to satisfy their needs and, therefore, harbor a certain fear.
Of this, the manager is not or does not want to be aware.
(Almost every manager will say they need power to be effective, but almost none will want their Employees to feel dependent and fearful).
In today's social environment there is less and less dependence on power because:
- Unions are strong. Job mobility is great. Difficulty in firing is also costly (at least psychologically). It is wasteful to train new employees. There is a tendency to transfer this power to Personnel Managers.
5. Invoice that the collaborators pass before the use of power of the boss.
- Upward communication is reduced and impoverished. The one above is alone and is the last to know. Less communicated. It communicates distorted: only what is interesting for the Collaborators. Covering one's back in writing is before solving the problem. Flattery and flattery flourish. There are favorites. The case of "Don Ángel, yes, sir" occurs more frequently. the antithesis of cooperation, submission, conformity. The boss has to say everything to do; there is no initiative, constant instructions are given. "You rule." Blindly obeyed, conformity is always counterproductive. In an instant the above can change and the opposite can happen: rebellion and defiance.Formation of alliances and coalitions, since «the union makes the force». Unilateral norms are developed: standards of quality, production, remuneration, etc.
6. Bill paid by managers before the use of power.
- Of time. Although "a priori" is decided quickly, the decision is ultimately not accepted and you have to start continuously, developing many rules, thickening bureaucracy, meetings, etc. of quality of execution. Because of the very low motivation, passive resistance, forgetfulness, mistakes. Of loneliness at the top. The boss is not close to the collaborators, nor is he sure that they will not deceive him; Deteriorated personal relationships of concern. Anxiety stress developed by all difficulties and constant mistrust. It produces a feeling of guilt. They need to constantly seek "more power" to feel safe, since what they have they perceive as insufficient. Decrease in their influence on Collaborators (paradoxically) since at bottom their ancestry is lost over the Collaborators and team.When power is used (inappropriate influence) it happens that when they then use authority (adequate influence) it will also be seen as abuse and will also provoke resistance and resentment.
7. Conflict resolution and problems
Despite the damage to relationships and decreased effectiveness, managers remain very attached to the use of power for conflict and problem solving, for two reasons:
- Cultural. This aggressive method has been suffered since childhood. It is the one that is known, is fully assumed and in which one is trained, due to the mistaken idea (also cultural) that having more power means having more influence.
A leader solves conflicts and problems always through alternative 1: I win You win, for the mutual satisfaction of needs. (When the courses indicate that the I win-You win method will be described, the first reaction of a majority of managers is of strangeness, skepticism and "let's see what they tell us now").
The key is in the following:
«I manager and you collaborators have a conflict of needs. I respect your needs but you must respect mine. I will not use my power over you so that I win and you lose. Nor do I wish to be resentful, allowing you to win and I to lose. Let us agree to look honestly for a solution that satisfies us both, we do not know now what it is, so that neither loses.
8. The Method.
It simply consists of:
ADDRESSING THE CONFLICT OR PROBLEM WITHOUT DELAY, USING A CONSTANT AND CONTINUOUS "CHANGE OF GEARS", KEEPING NOT A SINCERE AND OPEN COMMUNICATION THROUGH 5 STEPS.
1º IDENTIFY AND DEFINE THE PROBLEM by means of the emission of I-messages on your part and that of the other expressing feelings.
Communicate what is the definition of the problem or conflict as understood by the other. Actively listen if the other becomes defensive.
Also explore your own feelings. Often the problem is redefined during the discussion.
Before proceeding to the next step, make sure that you both share the definition of the problem. This phase, the most difficult, can assume 50 to 80% of the time of the entire process.
2º GENERATE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS. It is the creative part. The more you reflect, the more solutions appear. Frequently ask "what do you propose?" Actively listen. Never evaluate at this stage. If the search is difficult, redefine the problem again.
3º EVALUATE THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS. Be honest both. "Does it satisfy us both?"; "Is it really fair to both of us?" "Will it be feasible and easy to carry it out?" Actively listen but also broadcast I-messages if necessary. Discuss putting all possible solutions to the test without going overboard.
4º TO MAKE THE DECISION SELECTING A VALID ALTERNATIVE FOR BOTH. Create a commitment, not making the mistake of imposing a solution on the Contributor and trying to accept it. Reaching a viable agreement for both, even if it was not optimal for either of them. (Never come to a bad "deal" for either of them)
5th IMPLEMENTATION. Preaching is not giving wheat. Who does what and when? Have confidence that the Collaborator will act well.
9. Analysis of an example
Situation:
You, Jorge, were the boss of Federico, a very hard-working, conscientious, sincere, open employee, although not very diplomatic, with little tact and sometimes frankly uncomfortable; However, he is a manager who did a lot of work and did well.
You have been promoted and now Federico's boss, a Collaborator of yours, head of department named Tomás, wants to do without him and fire him.
You, who know Federico well, are surprised and do not like that decision at all. He meets Tomás:
Jorge. Good morning, Tomás. What's up today?
Tomás. Very good, Jorge.
J. I asked you to come and talk about Federico.
T. What do you mean?
J. I understand that you want to fire him and do without him.
T. Yes, indeed. I see you read my report.
J. I want to know more about it. Why do you think it is necessary?
T. Several things happen.
First, he is a daring man who has definitely interfered with the work you have entrusted to me and there is no one to finish it while he is in the way. It gets in my way and it does its thing.
I am concerned that you question my authority.
J. Do you mean that you cannot finish because it causes you problems and I increase your concern now by questioning your authority?
T. Yes, I don't get it. You entrust me with a difficult job with the date committed to a Client, it is late, you complain about the delay, I tell you what happens and now you doubt. My decision is that Federico must go.
J. You think that it is your prerogative to dismiss or not any of your Collaborators.
T. Of course, according to yourself, you taught me.
Now you look over my shoulder and I don't like it. You know that I work well, I have introduced new procedures, we are more effective and I am proud of it.
J. I see that you are satisfied with the innovations that you have achieved but you think that I want to monitor you closely and that I do not see what you are doing. How would you define the problem according to your own feelings and emotions?
T. I think a rotten apple spoils everything in the basket. If we leave Federico, everyone will end up losing my respect and authority.
J. I understand; you think you need a respect from all your Collaborators that Federico can undermine and you need authority so that things are done well.
T. Right. Someone may disagree. But not blatantly in front of everyone! This is done by Federico and the others feel the same freedom to proceed.
J. It is interesting. In other words, you are especially bothered by someone expressing their disagreement in front of others. You feel like that calls your authority into question.
T. Yes, that's right.
J. Excuse me, Tomás, but I wonder about your idea about the authority or power that you think you need.
T. Well, to carry out the work in quantity, quality and time, and moreover, this last assignment that you have made me, very complex, it is necessary to be clear who the boss is.
J. I understand. So, you want them to feel that what you say is done and that you make the decisions.
T. I do not like to be arguing because I do not think that indicates an appropriate attitude on the part of the Collaborators.
J. I would like to explore with you one thing that I am perceiving about the type of leadership that you feel you must exercise with your people.
Although there are advantages to directing authoritatively at times and good jobs are achieved, I think that has many disadvantages. He takes this article (he is given, for example, the article by Scott Meyers: "The motivation of executives, their conditions"; there are many others) that has concrete data that with this management style there is a greater turnover of personnel, morale is much worse, decisions are generally of poorer quality, information is also worse in quality and quantity. Read it and tell me what you think about it.
Firing Federico will not only entail the problem of replacing him, since most people appreciate him very much and have a great influence on them. Others could also become common cause.
I think Tomás sincerely you do a very good job but you also need good Collaborators. What do you think?
T. I see that there is a difference between the way we see the supervisory function, which you call leadership. What are we going to do with Federico?
J. I see that even if you wanted to adopt perhaps a more active type of leadership or supervision as you say, you would not know what to do with Federico.
T. That's right.
J. There may be several alternatives. Would you be willing to speak to Federico?
T. I don't think I can do much with him.
J. I sincerely believe that the person who has difficulty should face the problem. Have you discussed with him exactly how you think and how you see things?
T. Well, not that; but I'm almost sure you know how I feel. Are you suggesting that I have a formal interview with him?
J. Yes. I think so.
T. I don't know if it will do anything for his age and experience. Man, by trying nothing is lost!
J. If you want, I can be with you or I can only talk to him. But thinking about your relationships with him, I think it would be preferable if you were the only one to talk to him.
T. (Pensive). I would rather try it in principle alone with him.
Now, if I encounter the difficulties I foresee, we would both discuss the matter with you. Would you agree
J. Sounds like a good idea. I also have a suggestion that has just occurred to me and that some times I have practiced it has turned out to be holy: before your meeting with him, you and I will meet again. Think about the interview; I know Federico; I will play Federico and we will make a representation to practice in a small session.
T. (with a skeptical face). If you say it….? Yes, it might be helpful to try it out.
J. Very good, excellent. We already have the solution for Federico's. But aside from this, how do you think your leadership style could be honed…?
Answer the following questions:
- What is the problem as defined at the beginning? And how is it defined at the end? How many definitions are given of the problem? What conclusions are drawn
10. Advantages of this method.
- COHESION AROUND COMMITMENT to execute the decision. If the Collaborator has participated, it is their decision. BEST QUALITY DECISIONS. Creativity is forced and 4 eyes see more than two, each expressing their needs and understanding those of the other. BETTER HUMAN RELATIONS. One ends up feeling good with the other, since one considers the needs of the other and looks for a solution to the liking of both. FASTER DECISIONS. Not in the decision-making that derives from a discussion that can take a few hours, but in the execution and implementation, which is what usually takes more time. NO ONE HAS TO "SELL YOUR IDEA", which would be a method coercive that the Collaborator would distrust.PUTTING THE BOARD ON TRIAL. If the manager practices this method, he will communicate much better, motivate, lead and engage.But this means being willing to question yourself, taking risks, and being willing to listen to what your boss's Contributors think.
11. Disadvantages of this method.
- LACK OF EXPERIENCE IN IT. Although its conceptualization is easy, it takes training to acquire the required competence for its effective application. ITS PUTTING INTO PRACTICE. Learning requires more time and patience than the typical I WIN YOU LOSE.CULTURE method. The idea is strongly rooted that the manager must play the "role of boss" and the Collaborator that of "subordinate", the boss must be bright, serene, calm and controlled, hiding her feelings. As if being honest is too dangerous or presumptuous, being the best not to drop the mask.
12. Dangers.
What if a solution acceptable to both parties is not found?
Over the years, we have become convinced that the question is NEVER EXPERIENCED BY THE METHOD WHO ASKS THIS QUESTION, as it is a priori skeptical of the possibilities.
It is true that very exceptionally in the face of very complex conflicts a good dose of creativity and ingenuity is needed.
It may be necessary to repeat the process and the conversation again, redefining the problem or looking for new alternatives. If everyone involved is willing to reconsider, almost always a good solution acceptable to everyone is reached.
THE MOST SERIOUS TEMPTATION (THE TYPICAL): THE RETURN TO THE IMPOSITION BY POWER AND THE I WIN-YOU LOSE.
When a mutually acceptable solution is long in coming, you can conclude by saying: "Damn it, since we cannot agree, I will say what we are going to do since it is my responsibility that things go well !!".
If the manager does this, his Collaborator or Collaborators will learn a lesson that they will soon forget: «The boss uses power again when things don't go the way he likes. Why the hell are you asking me and trying to be participatory? »
When a manager has the patience and honesty to use the "we all win" method, THE ATTITUDE OF HIS COLLABORATORS CHANGES. They will go out of their way to help you solve problems and will be much more understanding than you think.
13. Two short examples.
FIRST EXAMPLE
Examples of how to solve conflicts in the organization
3 goes directly to 1, short-circuiting 2 passing over it, to solve a problem.
What should 1 do?
First alternative, the typical and the easy one: the I WIN YOU LOSE method.
1 says to 3: «It is inadmissible that the regulatory conduit is not followed. You don't have to come to me; solve your problem directly with 2, accordingly ». (Note that the logic is overwhelming.)
Second alternative, the rarest, most difficult and correct: I WIN YOU WIN.
- 1 listens sympathetically and sympathetically to 3, not to solve his problem (which he should not) but to understand and accept him (active listening), then 1 asks 3 to come to 2 to express their complaint, advising them to only send messages -I.3 is ready, the problem is solved. If it is not, keep communicating and propose to 3 the alternative of calling 2 to jointly look for an acceptable solution for 3 and for 2. If 3 rejects this alternative, 1 should explain why he is not willing to make any decision in the absence of 2.If 3 agrees, the three of them act together as catalyst and intermediary, so that the problem is solved only between 2 and 3.
THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT EVERYONE WIN.
SECOND EXAMPLE
As a consequence of the previous action, 2 acts immaturely and, being resentful against 3 for the initiative that he took to short-circuit him, he dedicates him to tasks that are inappropriate for him.
What should 3 do?
First alternative, the typical and easy one: the I LOSE YOU WIN method. «I resign myself, smile and bear it. When I find an opportunity, I'll get out of here.
Second alternative, the rarest, most difficult and correct: I WIN YOU WIN.
- 3 asks 2 for an appointment to speak, explain and give him reasons why he is now ineffective in this inappropriate task for him, by sending messages -I combined with active listening. If 2 refuses to deal with 3 the problem, 3 please ask him to come and talk to 1, hoping he can find a 'no one loses' solution. If 2 refuses too, 3 tells him that he will get 1 to ask for help anyway, although I would prefer 2 If 2 still refuses, 3 goes to see 1, explaining first of all that he has taken steps a), b) and c).
14. Conclusion.
Despite the many reasons that support the proposed method, which are summarized in the saying: "People speak when they understand each other", supported by real practical experience, strangely, we continue to find an opposition sometimes with aggressive overtones as if we were trying to undermine the power of managers, when in fact their ability to motivate and be effective is enhanced.
The truth is that this method encourages and develops personal leadership as we have defined it.
It is also true that, for it to work and to have confidence in this idea in real practice, it has to be carried out at all levels, STARTING AT THE MANAGEMENT DOME, since culture is always descending.
