What do you do if two colleagues are locked in a heated dispute?

Assess the situation and determine whether it's necessary to get involved if so then listen to both sides , establish ground rules and look for a middle ground if possible

I don't agree completely with this. When there is a heated dispute the impact to the team morale and effectiveness can be very high. So sometimes intervening soon may be necessary to stop behaviors that can be costly to the people, the team and the company. It does not have to be harsh, but it needs to be firm. Something like: "I know you are both looking for the best outcome here, but we will have better results if we address this in a different way. Let's take a break and we come back to focus on a solution together"

O texto destaca a importancia de avaliar com calma situa??es de disputa entre colegas. Recomenda observar antes de intervir, o que permite entender a intensidade do conflito e os pontos de discordancia. Sugere também que um comportamento calmo pode influenciar positivamente os envolvidos, indicando que uma resolu??o racional é possível. Enfatiza a importancia de compreender as perspectivas de ambas as partes e, uma vez entendido o conflito, facilitar um diálogo construtivo entre os colegas.

Heated disputes are created by the polarization of ideas and points of view. While it's important to calmly assess the situation, creating an environment where negotiation can take place requires intervention and the ability to pause the current conversation to establish healthy boundaries and establish what is factual. From there you can begin the work of reducing polarization by identifying where both sides are similar and where they agree.

Disputes in a work place are unavoidable which is the whole point of creating mechanisms to manage them whenever they occur. Intervening in a dispute between two people requires a fair assessment of the positions of the disputing parties to avoid being seen to take sides. Therefore having a full grasp of the issues will be most useful in facilitating a resolution and deciding on the best approach to interrogate the parties. The best way to make this happen is to have individual private conversations with the disputants and afterwards a joint session where they are allowed to openly ventilate their grievances. At this point they are at liberty to unleash their anger and then feel much better when they have had the opportunity to to do so.

O texto destaca a importancia da escuta ativa ao lidar com conflitos, incentivando a todos a compartilharem suas perspectivas sem interrup??o. Ele ressalta a importancia de prestar aten??o n?o apenas às palavras, mas também ao tom e linguagem corporal, para compreender as emo??es e motiva??es envolvidas. Mostrar interesse genuíno em entender os pontos de vista dos outros ajuda a construir confian?a e a demonstrar imparcialidade. Refletir sobre o que foi ouvido confirma a compreens?o e reconhece as preocupa??es dos envolvidos, preparando o terreno para uma comunica??o aberta e produtiva.

I will meet then separately and hear what is the issue. Later on, sit with both on them and mediate, trying to find a resolution and define a protocol to address this type of issues in the future. People do not like to be expose and also to request the intervention of a third party, especially in the work environment; so is very likely they will try to avoid this type of matters escalates to this level again. I am aware this is a very simplistic way to address the issue, but there is no much context in this particular the case, however, this approach has serve me in the past.

Listening to someone demands a feeling of empathy in order to understand their story and the deep feelings behind the story. One of the attribute of an active listening is to listen without interruption. When people are allowed to speak freely they tend pour out everything in them. As a lawyer this is a useful skill in dealing with clients and proffering the rights solutions to their legal problems.

Since I encountered this issue several times, nothing is better than listening to both parties. Those involved need to be heard then as a third person who can be known is making fair decisions by assessing their claims make a statement. This statement must have profits for both sides even if one-side didn't deserve it.

“Open communication” I understand is the main point of active listening. The ability to know how to listen and be open to improvements and professional development is a great differentiator in a corporate environment.

After a fair and personal assessment of the dispute and thereafter listening to the stories of the disputants, it is important to bring them together to a joint session. One of the things to note in this joint session is the comfort of the parties so that they feel free to ventilate their grievances without holding anything back. Therefore a neutral venue is critical e.g. a less formal environment (out of the office), a park, a good restaurant etc. While it is advisable to follow through with the above point, it is also necessary to set grounds rules of engagement before the session commences. It is the rules that will guide the conversations and ultimately lead both the parties and the mediator to arrive at a desired settlement.

O texto enfatiza a importancia de estabelecer regras básicas antes de iniciar uma discuss?o, como falar de forma ordenada, evitar ataques pessoais e focar na quest?o presente. Essas regras criam um ambiente seguro para a express?o construtiva e lembram que o objetivo é encontrar uma solu??o aceitável para ambas as partes, apesar das emo??es envolvidas.

O texto destaca a importancia de explorar solu??es de forma colaborativa ao lidar com disputas entre colegas. Ele enfatiza a necessidade de compreender as perspectivas de cada parte e as regras em vigor. Incentiva a discuss?o de ideias que abordem as quest?es centrais da disputa, promovendo um sentimento de apropria??o sobre o processo de resolu??o. A paciência e a orienta??o s?o destacadas para garantir que todas as sugest?es sejam consideradas. O objetivo é encontrar uma solu??o mutuamente aceitável que contribua positivamente para o ambiente de trabalho.

The expected outcome of mediating a dispute is to arrive at a resolution at the end of the process. In most cases from my experience as a lawyer, solutions flow from the engagements between the disputing parties. Disputes by mediation/negotiation are usually resolved on a win-win basis and not on a win-lose basis. In other words, there is no winner and no loser but a common ground. None of the disputants should think he is the winner or the loser. Where one party believes he is giving something without getting anything back could potentially stall a bright case and stall resolution even where the process leading to that time has been smooth. An almost insignificant item as "I am sorry" could be the clincher.

O texto destaca a importancia de mediar discuss?es de forma neutra e justa, sem impor opini?es próprias. O mediador deve facilitar a conversa, ajudar na compreens?o das diferentes posi??es e encontrar pontos em comum entre os envolvidos. Manter o diálogo respeitoso e produtivo é essencial, lembrando sempre das regras básicas e do progresso já alcan?ado. Uma media??o justa aumenta a probabilidade de uma resolu??o duradoura e pode fortalecer as rela??es profissionais.

Access calmy and then make the ground rules very clear. No harsh words and insult. The goal of meditation needs to be reminded to the parties so that they can get the benefits of meditation. One has to be fair to the parties which should be very evident to the parties.

One of the known pillars of natural justice is that everyone should be given equal opportunity to be heard (fair hearing). A mediator/negotiator should always have this in mind. A mediator/negotiator may be allowed a little window to make suggestions to the parties but not to insist or force his opinion on the parties as this can be a red flag to his neutrality. Knowledge and experience are critical attributes at this point because the mediator/negotiator will be made to explain and/or clarify the positions of the parties in the course of the process. Neutrality is a given.

First step, find common ground, by finding common ground you established "trust", then work from thereon. Stay humble, but hold your "ground" (sorry Afrikaans, if my English does not bring over the message in a proper manner, language misunderstanding) see, common ground already established, Always stay humble, but hold your ground

Strong opposed opinions well canalized may be something good as the final outcome may have received very strong scrutiny making failure less probable. What can't be allowed is to get into a path that goes from disagreement to disrespect.