Resolution

Resolving a conflict can sometimes be made easier by establishing a timeline of events, figuring out the root cause that led to the conflict, and focusing on what can be done to address the underlying issues.

A professional conflict is only resolved when the underlying causes of the conflict are found and fixed. This allows the organization to learn from its mistakes, and helps it trend towards a more productive and harmonious workplace.

For example, if people not unstacking the dishwasher is a constant source of conflict, the problem may not be that people are inconsiderate, but may instead be that there is not enough storage space for dishes and utensils. If we tried to resolve the conflict by only looking at the symptom, we would ask that people be more considerate. If we instead addressed the root of the conflict, we might instead clear out cabinet space and drawers to create spaces where dishes and utensils could be stored.

To help get to the underlying issues that caused a conflict, it can be helpful to use an analytical technique. There are many techniques to choose from, but for resolving conflicts in a professional work environment some of the most useful are After Action Reviews, 5-Whys root cause analysis, and Stoic reasoning.

After Action Reviews originate from the military, and are used to construct a timeline of events that is devoid of any blame.

5-whys root cause analysis has its origins in manufacturing, where it was discovered that by asking the question, "Why?" at least five times, the root cause of an issue was often discovered.

Stoic reasoning, originating in ancient Greece, separates things we can't control from things we can, which allows us to focus our efforts on what we can control.

All of these techniques counteract emotionality, and allow all parties involved in a conflict to think logically and rationally about how best to resolve the conflict.

As an example of how all three techniques might be used together to find a resolution to a conflict, imagine you were mediating a conflict between two colleagues, and had gotten them to the point where they were calm, and had fully understood the other person's perspective. Let's say these colleagues were named Sam and Jessie, and to recap the mediation session you might say, "OK, I think we all understand each other. Sam, you believe Jessie is deliberately making you late, and Jessie, you believe Sam is intentionally not helping you with your work. Is that correct?"

Assuming each person agrees that this accurately reflects their perspective, you might perform an After-Action Review by saying, "Let's go back to the last time this issue occurred, and let's build a timeline of events."

After asking Sam and Jessie what happened, and when it happened, you then review the timeline they constructed by saying, "OK, yesterday at 8:00 am Jessie sent Sam an email asking for help, at 8:20 am, Sam replied that they were too busy to help. At 4:00 pm Sam emailed Jessie asking if they had completed their work, as it was due by end of day, and Jessie did not reply until 9:55 am this morning, saying they needed more time, which was 5 minutes before the 10:00 am status update meeting, which was where the two of you got into a heated argument. Is this timeline correct?"

Assuming Sam and Jessie agree that this is what in fact took place, you can then use the 5-Whys technique by asking, "Jessie, why did you send the email asking Sam for help?" to which Jessie replies, "Because Sam offered to help the day before." You may then ask Sam, "Sam, why did you offer Jessie help?" to which Sam replies, "Because I was worried they were going to be late," at which point you ask, "Why were you worried that Jessie was going to be late?" to which Sam replies, "Because they were late on delivering their last assignment," after which you ask, "Jessie, why were you late delivering your last assignment?" to which Jessie replies, "Because I didn't have a finalized specification, and couldn't start my work." You then ask, "Why didn't you have a finalized specification?" to which Jessie replies, "Because I was waiting on Blake, but Blake was out of the office for two weeks, and is still trying to catch up with their work."

At this point, you might say, "Then it would seem the root cause of why you two got into an argument this morning at the 10:00 am status update meeting is that Blake has been behind in getting specifications to Jessie due to them being on vacation and having trouble catching up. Does this sound right?"

Assuming Sam and Jessie agree, you might then use a Stoic approach to finding a resolution, by saying, "We can't control when Blake goes on vacation, and there's little we can do to help them catch up with their work as none of us can do their job. However, I will speak with Blake's manager, and ask if there's anything they can do to help Blake get back on track. Jessie, it's now clear that if Blake is late, you'll also be late, but when that happens you can let Sam know immediately, and you both can reset expectations before the next status meeting. Jessie, can you commit to sending an email to Sam when you're not getting specifications on time?" Provided Jessie says yes, you might turn to Sam and say, "Sam, if Jessie lets you know that they don't have the specifications they need, will the two of you work together to reset delivery expectations?" Provided Sam also says yes, then you might ask explicitly, "Do you both consider this issue resolved?" If they both say yes, then the conflict is resolved.

While you do not have to use After Action Reviews, 5-Whys Root Cause analysis, or Stoic reasoning to resolve every conflict, whatever technique you use, it should be made clear that the goal is not to assign blame, only to figure out when things happened, why they happened, and what we are going to do about it.