How can you deescalate conflict without violence or litigation?

I would ask suggest if the two parties can not come to a reasonable compromise or resolution, then get a third person who would be unbiased.

Empathy is a key to de-escalation of conflict, and the context of empathy is to put yourself in the other parties shoes before you put them in your shoes. This you can achieve by finding 5 positive explanations for their negative behavior. A simple scale to achieve that level of understanding is to apply the LARSQ formular. L Listen- Listen to get information and give validation. A Acknowledge- Show investment in the conversation R Rephrase- Detoxify words used by your opponent S Summarize- Get to the meet, look beyond the apparent Q Questions- Ask as many questions as possible. Using this method has the high potential to deescalate a conflict without violence or litigation.

L.A.S.T. L.isten with the intent to understand their pov. A.pologize....I'm sorry ________ S.olve ....what will resolve the challenge and make it right. If they were in charge, what would they do and if you were in their shoes, what would you want T.ake Action......make it RIGHT!

Another way to frame this portion of the conflict is to ask folks about their hopes and fears. Often people may not be able to express ‘goals’ at this stage and getting to their hopes and fears allows them to express the emotional aspects of a given situation.

I consistently check with members of my team and keep an open line of communication. This helps bridge the gap between the working staff and myself as the manager of the collective. It serves everyone’s best interest to keep an open door line of communication regarding any concern or question that may arise in day to day operations. When my team members have consistent interaction with me, they are able to address matters with ease and often find that conflict is only a word and it doesn’t necessarily define a ‘problem’, rather a discussion that is yet to be had.

It’s always best to think like a lawyer in terms of taking yourself and your feelings out of the situation. Think of how a lawyer presents a case with facts before a judge in a legal matter. Consider your opposing party and their underlying demands or requests and ask them for detailed information as to why they are making these demands. You will find that you can use empathy to understand where they are coming from and you can eliminate unnecessary litigation by compromising on issues they might have that you find completely understandable. Give and take is important for any negotiation. When you can mediate it is best to go that route before putting the fate of said conflict in a third parties hands.

You can role play. Get a good friend of yours and starting with accusations, yelling at each other, adding some insults if necessary. Try to mirror the nature & structure, mood & mode of communication between the conflicting parties. Let them see themselves in you. If you can annoy them, then you have accomplished your goal.

In case of serious disagreements with major ramifications, each party should pick two or three mediators from their colleagues and sign a pledge to abide by their unanimous decisions.

I would advise that you avoid bringing in that third party at all costs and exhaust all efforts within reason before seeking outside counsel. Only when it is absolutely necessary, should you seek assistance from an outside party. This is generally because bringing in someone to oversee the matter at hand will trigger an automatic defense mechanism in the respondent of such matter. When fear is engaged people are not as willing to negotiate this causes a person or parties to be closed off to any compromise. People, generally, have a certain level of comfort in negotiating when they feel as if the ground is level between the two parties within said conflict, but the moment one party issues a statement or subpoena that’s over. No more trust

Follow up, I would say, depending on the situation is the least important focal point of the process. It only comes after conflict resolution and like I mentioned in an example previously regarding this matter, keeping a consistent presence among your individual situation with staff or otherwise is key to avoiding conflict in the first place. If you can take the step to check in before the conflict arises you can possibly eliminate the whole stigma around raising conflict. Thus you can avoid the vast array of issues that inevitably ensue thereafter if you were to practice the crows nest presence approach.

In my experience, when we can show people that the conflict they face is merely a mirror of an internal conflict, we can diffuse the negative bond created between the parties. Conflict is really a journey to know the ‘self’.