When two of your employees are in conflict, the consequences can involve your entire staff. The case may even resound in the highest echelons of your company. On the other hand, it’s easy to distort the differences between two individuals.
A mild disagreement, even a quarrel, may represent a temporary state of affairs. People, being human, don’t always like or respect one another. However, when you become aware of friction between employees there are steps to take to avoid a widespread conflagration:
Should you act?
Even a violent quarrel may not signal a call to action on your part. It’s not unusual for people under tension to let fly at one another with angry words. When the tension relaxes, the hard feelings go with it and often the feuding pair will repair the situation themselves and be thankful that no one has interfered, formalizing the trouble and making it more difficult to smooth over.
Think your way through.
Once you decide to take the initiative, give some thought to what you are going to do:
- It’s important that you understand the reason for the disagreement, even though you will probably not want to judge the merits of the case, and exonerate one individual and find another “guilty as charged.” (Of course, the assumption is that this is not a situation where one individual is bullying or victimizing another. In this situation, your intervention may be desirable at an early date, with the full weight of your authority thrown into the approach, if necessary.)
- Keep in mind that your objective is to terminate the conflict, making it as easy as possible for the individuals to get back to normal without any scars.
The procedure you use.
With the preliminary steps taken care of, you want to talk to the feuders either individually or together. Which one of these two approaches you use depends on the nature of the quarrel and the character of the individuals involved. Then consider—
- Timing. Delay may incubate the trouble, but overeagerness may be as bad. Again, the nature of the disagreement and the characters of the principals tell you whether they will be easier to handle the day after a flare-up or on the spot.
- Breaking the ice. This may be the toughest part of the procedure. You may want to take up the problem head-on. “Men, we have got a situation here that we’d better deal with before it gets completely out of hand. . . .” Or else, directly, “You both must realize how important it is for us to have a friendly atmosphere in the office. . .
- Third-party? In some cases, the presence of another employee not directly involved in the feud may help. This is especially true when he may have some information that will help clear the air.
- Place for the discussion. Your choice of a meeting place may make things easier. An invitation to go out for lunch or a cup of coffee may smooth the way.
The agenda.
Once your discussion is under way, there are three points to be covered, preferably in this order:
- Areas of agreement. If the quarrel hinges on differences of opinion, you may be able to point out that there are points on which the arguers agree.
- Areas of difference. In many cases, if you clarify the nature of the differences, a basic misunderstanding may be found at the bottom of the hard feelings. In any event, spotlighting the differences will put the situation in a better perspective.
- This means of ending the disagreement. If possible, leave it up to the principals themselves to resolve the situation. If the argument is about some action or decision that must be made, a flip of the coin, a compromise by one of the individuals admitting he was wrong, or that the issue was petty, may do it.
Strengthening the bonds.
A well-set break in a bone often turns out to be the strongest section. In the same way, a rift between two people, after healing, may find them on better terms than ever before.
Frequently, such improved relationships happen as a natural result of the best efforts you have made. But there may be additional ways you can help. Any moves that show your goodwill toward both individuals to assure both that bygones are bygones, and that you have not taken sides or placed blame, will help mend the situation.
Handling A Complaint By One Employee Against Another
A subordinate comes to you saying that a fellow employee borrowed a fairly large sum of money several pay days ago and now refuses to pay it back within the agreed time. Would you—
a. Tell him it’s not your affair and refer him to a lawyer.
b. Call in the second worker and try to work out an agreement.
c. Hunt up the second worker privately and bawl him out.
d. Try a fourth alternative.
This apparently simple complaint raises several questions you would have to answer to make any move: Are the circumstances described by the employee correct—that is, did he really lend the money? Was there an understanding of the time within which the debt was to be repaid? Why does the second employee refuse to return the money?
Once the facts raised by these questions have been verified, it’s possible to act. What is essential here is a gradualistic approach. It is not unreasonable for the employee to look to you for help, but it is unreasonable for you to move in with the full weight of your authority.
Accordingly, alternative (b) originally suggested is a wise opening gambit. And since your authority really doesn’t cover collecting debts for your employees, the ultimate move would be the suggestion to the lender that he may have to take legal recourse.
