As a coach, it's important to curb your well-intentioned impulse to solve the problem.

One of the simplest ways to practice the alignment of aikido is to listen with interest to people's stories.

2 ALIGN AND ENGAGE

The heart of most conflict is not irreconcilable differences, but irreconcilable stories.

—Joseph Grenny, Crucial Conversatsions

Primary Purpose

Chapter 2 is an overview of how to approach all the individual sessions, regardless of how many sessions are required. The primary purpose of Chapter 2 is to equip you with tools to hear and validate each party's distinct narrative of the conflict.

Chapter 3 specifically addresses what happens in the first individual session.

Chapters 4 and 5 contain conflict and communication practices you can use to coach the parties in the individual sessions.

Preparation

• Know the purpose and desired outcome for each session.
• Review your notes.
• Enter with optimism for a positive outcome.

Agenda

• Ask for any new developments since the last session.
• Discuss ways to prepare for the next session and set a date.
• Take notes; send them in a follow-up email after each session.
• Assign homework.

Homework

To fully engage the parties in the process, I've found it helpful to give homework assignments that reinforce the focus of each session and prepare them for the next. At the end of most chapters, I give examples of homework, such as reading, self-reflection, and experiential activities. I also list additional books, articles, and websites in the Further Resources section at the back of the book. The point is to support the parties and their process in as many ways as possible, and to maintain momentum between sessions.

If you want to prepare by reading some of the books in advance, I recommend the following:

• Unlikely Teachers: Finding the Hidden Gifts in Daily Conflict by Judy Ringer
• Managing Conflict with Power & Presence Workbook by Judy Ringer
• The Magic of Conflict by Thomas Crum
• Journey to Center by Thomas Crum
• Three Deep Breaths by Thomas Crum
• Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen
• Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When the Stakes are High by Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler
• Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman
• Thanks for the Feedback by Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen
• The Elephant in the Room by Diana McLain Smith
• Mindset by Carol S. Dweck, PhD
• Radical Candor by Kim Scott
• Triggers by Marshall Goldsmith
• Ask Powerful Questions by Will Wise

Why Meet Individually?

When you have two individuals at odds—and each is valuable to the organization, knowledgeable, experienced, and compatible with everyone but each other—what do you do?

You may have tried:

• The pep talk: “Come on, now, you can do this. Rise above it.”
• The appeal to compassion and empathy: “Try not to take things so personally; see things from his perspective.”
• The common-sense approach: “Your work is suffering. Something has to change. You don't have to be best friends, but you do have to work together and get the job done.”

You may have also tried evading, ignoring, and hoping the situation would resolve itself. You've probably brought the topic up at performance reviews, and talked to colleagues, coaches, and consultants. Yet the problem persists.

Each person brings value to the organization. And they must be able to work together amicably. Consequently, you decide to keep working at the situation and bring them together to talk things through.

Although it is tempting to get everyone in the same room right away, I've learned a joint meeting at this early stage often makes matters worse. The parties don't yet have the skills or perspective they need to be open to any view but their own.

Annie, a trusted colleague and vice president of HR with a national health-care provider has had many opportunities to facilitate difficult coworker conversations during her long career. She told me she learned early on never to bring the two people together at the beginning:

I really listen to Person A. Then, I really listen to Person B. I go back and forth, meeting with the parties individually until each is ready to listen and be open to working things out.

I recall a failure early on when I was in a “hurry up and fix this” mode and didn't stick with the process I knew worked. My manager at the time told me to “just get them in a room together!” I got caught up in it and did bring them together. They were soon shouting at each other. Plus, my emotions got going and fueled the fire.

I learned from that to always meet privately first with each of the individuals and to make sure each party knows this is part of the process.

If you've already broached the problem at a joint meeting, maybe you know Annie's experience. Each individual pushes to have their perspective acknowledged. No one listens. Emotions run high. The problem escalates. This is especially true if the conflict has a long history. Each party has fine-tuned their narrative—their conflict story—about why the other person is the problem: “If only they were different, everything would be all right.” At this point, the conflict may also be polarizing the work environment.

Or you may have experienced the “let's talk it out” team meeting during which one employee ends up feeling most of the heat. This can happen when, as their manager, you want to hear from all sides in the conflict. You think it will be helpful for all involved to understand each other's point of view. Plus, you hope it will save time. This kind of meeting seldom goes well, especially if you have a belief (conscious or not) that one of the people in the room is the source of the problem. Instead of resolving the conflict, one employee leaves feeling responsible, hurt, antagonistic, and unable to face the team the next day.

I like to give the parties a chance to get their feet on the ground, develop some skills, and increase their awareness of their contribution to the conflict—rather than put people in a position where they feel the need to defend themselves.

Meeting with each person individually for one or more sessions reduces defensiveness and increases the possibilities for resolution for many reasons:

• As a multi-partial third party (see sidebar on page 45), you represent what the parties cannot offer each other at this point: openness to hearing their point of view, empathy, reassurance, and acknowledgment. In other words, you provide an opportunity for each person to tell his or her story fully and without interruption.
• Non-judgmental listening offers a release valve for the pent-up emotional energy held in each conflict story. Each person can “tell it like it is” to a willing listener.
• Personalized instruction addresses unique needs. You match your coaching and skill building to each party's ability, and each naturally processes the coaching differently.
• Each party learns to speak for themselves in ways that are necessary and important for the joint sessions.

Your primary task throughout the individual sessions is to ask questions, acknowledge each person's positive intent, and redirect what you hear toward a sustainable resolution. Annie calls this inquiry mode her “Columbo” method, from the television series starring Peter Falk as an unassuming homicide detective whose persistent questions gradually uncover details of the crime. Lieutenant Columbo is relentlessly curious, always delving deeper, while at the same time calmly reflecting, “Help me understand . . .” or “When you say . . . what does that mean?”

In my own practice, I take a similar approach: asking questions to discover new information, staying on the lookout for red flags, and digging deeper while remaining respectful of the process. I also practice being comfortable with silence and try to stop myself from jumping in too quickly. I wait for a few beats even after I hear an answer in case the person has more to say. I read nonverbal cues, such as someone's lack of eye contact, tears, emotional moments, or fidgeting, and I follow up on them. For example, I may ask, “Where did you go just then, when you looked away and stopped talking?” Or, “Where are the tears coming from?” I ask other questions to get at what the parties are really trying to say, such as, “When you said you don't like it when you get ‘attitude’ from your coworker, what does that mean? What does it look like? Can you give me a specific behavior that triggers your anger?” These kinds of questions encourage the person to say more.

It's also important to notice and challenge your assumptions. For example, you may want to believe a high performer over a more average one. Annie suggests you consider that people “may be different from your idea of who they are.” Meeting with people individually gives you time to learn who each person really is, what motivates them, and the larger context for the conflict.

It's important to be truly and genuinely interested in everything about the person and their story, which creates feelings of safety, openness, and calm. The person you're meeting with understands this is not a rush job. You're completely present for the long run, not packing your bag for the next meeting.

Stand Side by Side

If you watch aikido closely, you'll soon observe that it's not actually fighting. The person receiving the attack doesn't block or strike back. She enters, aligns with the energy, and redirects it, keeping herself and her opponent safe. A major shift happens when you start to think this way in everyday life as well, when you begin to see an “attack” simply as an opportunity to align with incoming energy, information, or positive intent, then redirect what you receive toward a solution.

Aligning and engaging your conflict partner's energy is one of the more revolutionary aspects of aikido and is what you are doing in the individual sessions. These meetings provide an opening to stand side by side with each party in the conflict and help them redirect their fighting energy toward a more useful purpose: resolving the conflict and becoming more socially and emotionally intelligent. As we move on to the specific purpose and content for each individual session, I want to reinforce the primary instruments we use when standing side by side with each party: listening, acknowledging, and creating openings for resolution to take place.

Listen and Acknowledge

One of the most powerful methods for healing a relationship is also the simplest. It is to listen, to give one's complete attention to the aggrieved person for as long as he or she has something to say. . . . Indeed, sometimes what people really want most is a chance to have their grievance heard and acknowledged by others.

—William Ury, Getting to Peace

The most important thing in communication is to hear what isn't being said.

—Peter F. Drucker, management consultant and author

One of the simplest ways to practice the alignment of aikido is to listen with interest to people's stories. In the individual sessions, the players have time to relate how the conflict evolved and affects them and their work. Your job is to listen with objectivity, non-judgment, and curiosity.

Simple? Yes. But not easy. Before we move into planning the individual sessions, here are a few dos and don'ts that can help you listen.

Don't

1. Debate. The parties will only push back. You don't want to show them the error of their ways. They'll learn in time and through experience. Don't share what seems so obvious to you, as in “if only they could see” what you see. Your observations may be accurate, but the parties in conflict can't hear you until they have been heard. Don't store rebuttals in your mind. Instead, relax the counterarguments, and keep your mind open and focused on them. When they feel heard—whether you agree with them or not—they feel validated. They lighten. They can listen to other possible scenarios.
2. Try to solve the problem. It's the solution they come up with themselves that will stick. Because you're their manager, and because you can see how each person could be helped by knowing information they don't have or by benefitting from your experience, you may be tempted to offer advice, explain the larger view, tell them what they're missing, or ask leading questions. I know this because it happens every time I'm in your shoes. Your intention is positive: You want to help your people and you want to resolve the conflict. It would be so easy if they could see what you see. I also know the value of just listening without judgment, a gift that lets your employees hear themselves, and reflect on what they're thinking and saying. Solving comes later in the joint sessions, and ideally, the parties do it themselves, together.

Do

1. Stay curious. Curiosity is an ally that helps you maintain peace of mind. Even more than the questions you ask, the mindset of curiosity is one of the most powerful tools you have for guiding your team members' emotional energy and defusing anger. Because people appreciate the opportunity to express their emotions and clarify their intentions, curiosity has a centering effect.
2. Ask open-ended, honest questions. Pose questions to which you don't know the answer. Start with “what” or “how” whenever possible. Encourage the parties to get the whole story out. The following examples can help get you started:
   • “Tell me your perspective. What's been happening?”
   • “How did this begin?”
   • “How does this conflict impact your work?”
   • “What part of this problem has been most challenging?”
   • “Tell me about a time you felt differently about . . . / got along well with . . . / worked well together? What happened to change that?”
   • “What behaviors bother you the most?”
   • “What behaviors are happening when things are going well?”
   • “What is the solution from your point of view?”
   • “How have you contributed to the conflict?”
   • “How would (the other party) tell the story of this conflict (and answer the other questions above)?”
   • “How do you feel about doing this conflict resolution work?”
   • “What would an ideal partnership with this person look like?”

   Any one of these questions will get you started and, if you stay curious, will generate other questions, leading you deeper into the person's story and revealing more of their beliefs, values, and hopes—exactly what you want to happen. In Chapter 3, there are additional questions that broaden and deepen the topic at hand.

   Questions that are not useful include:

   • “What if you tried. . . .?”
   • “Have you thought of apologizing?”
   • “Don't you think you're taking things too personally?”
   • “How could you see things from their perspective?”
   • “If I were you, I would. . . . What do you think of trying that?”
3. Validate. Acknowledge, clarify, and reflect back the person's view—whether you agree with it or not. For example:
   • “What I hear you saying is . . .”
   • “It makes sense you might feel that way.”
   • “What you just said seems particularly important. Can you say more?”
   • “I'm sorry that happened. What about the situation was most difficult for you?”
   • “What would be an ideal solution?”
4. Look for what they're not saying. Notice mixed signals. The individual might say they're fine with the coaching process as outlined, for example, but you sense some hesitation. They're avoiding eye contact or reluctant to share their story. These are indications they may not be saying what's really on their mind. Continue to describe what you see and invite them to say more.

Create Openings

Your first goals are to learn and fully understand the conflict stories as well as sense the possibilities for resolution. Until the parties feel heard, they can't begin to think about moving off their positions. The more you listen, the more you offer both people the opportunity to see and hear themselves, reflect on their stories, and ponder their contributions and readiness to move toward resolution.

The individual sessions foster connection between the parties by helping them see each other differently. I often hear from managers, “These are two wonderful human beings.” And you've probably had similar experiences with people in conflict who are, for you, intelligent, positive, friendly human beings. But for each other, they are difficult.

Often, contrasting learning or behavior styles can result in conflict. People have ways of operating in the world. Introversion and extraversion are two of the most common descriptors for diverging styles, and there are others. In the workplace, it's possible to perceive a divergent style as a personal attack. For example, if I'm a big-picture person, I can get irritable with a coworker who is conscientious about details. I want to move on while they're still laboring over what is, for me, a tiny point. Some people wear their “hearts on their sleeve” while others are more reserved emotionally, and may seem aloof and uncaring to a more “heart-centered” person.

When in conflict, it helps to consider that opposing styles might well be complementary strengths if employed with intention and purpose. Your attention to detail could save me from making a big mistake. My ability to see the big picture offers insight into a problem that you might not otherwise see. A behavior or personality assessment can create an opening for the parties to put their similarities and differences to good use.

By having the parties complete and (in the joint sessions) compare assessments, you gain greater perspective on your people, and they gain insight on themselves. These instruments also supply data that make for interesting conversation in the joint sessions. I usually reserve one individual session exclusively for a style instrument. The parties can complete the assessment during the session or as homework for later discussion. In the joint sessions, I ask the parties to discuss the similarities and differences in their styles, and how these differences may have contributed to their ongoing conflict.

There are a variety of instruments to choose from, some requiring training and certification. The ones I use most often are described in Appendix B starting on page 169.

The individual sessions generate opportunities for the parties to see their conflict from a wider perspective, their conflict partners as human beings with more than one facet, and themselves as potential partners in creating resolution. You and they also build skills in effective communication and conflict management.

In Phase 1, we explored the importance of working on yourself first—your centered presence, personal power, and clarity of purpose—in order to prepare for the intervention and the individual sessions. We also reviewed the overarching purpose for the individual sessions and how you can maximize their impact in getting the conflict resolution process off to a positive start.

In Phase 2, we look at each individual session—including frameworks, agendas, concepts, and skills—and how what comes from the individual sessions leads the process toward meeting jointly.

Key Points

• The overarching purpose for the individual sessions is to build the parties' skills, confidence, and openness to ultimately resolve the conflict in joint sessions.
• While tempting to bring the parties together right away, it is usually more productive to meet with each person individually first.
• As a multi-partial third party, you provide an opportunity for each party to tell their story fully and without interruption.
• The primary instruments you use to align with and engage the parties in resolving the conflict are: listening and acknowledging, and creating openings for resolution to take place.
• Don't debate what you hear or try to solve the problem.
• Do stay curious, ask open-ended questions, validate, and look for what the parties are not saying.
• You want to create openings for the parties to see the conflict from a wider perspective and reposition themselves as partners in creating the solution.