Your team is in the middle of a heated debate. How can you help them find common ground?

The first step is to promote respectful listening; which means letting indiviudals share their perspective without interruption and/or judgement. This provides opportunity to defuse the negative energy in the discussion. Once everyone has been able to share their perspective, a take away from a Franklin Covey development program is to consider the potential outcome differently, i.e. there doesn't need to be a "winner" and a "loser" within the debate. Rather, listen to one another's point of view and try to identify something that you wish to explore from each perspective. There may be a potential opportunity to arrive at a solution that is different than what each side was proposing.

There are a lot of systematic methodologies for sure to address such situations which are common in business environments, yet I would like to share 2 ways which are somewhat extreme though from my experience effective, first is setting the rule and moderation in a dictatorship mode and the second which I consider the most effective is being intentionally the common opposition for both or other and gradually absorbing the negative feelings in the atmosphere if any!

Sometimes I let disagreements continue as conflict can, and often does, lead to innovative solutions and new idea generation. If you step in too soon you can lose these new opportunities. Also, by trying to resolve conflict too early you do not give members of the team the opportunity to work it out for themselves.

Remind them of the overall intention. I like to use the analogy of riding a bicycle up a hill. Ask if they've ridden a bicycle up a hill. Then, ask if they've notice how much easier it is to pedal if they look at the top of the hill instead of down at the pedals. Ask them what is at the top of their hill. Looking at the pedals puts them into conflict...the top of the hill moves them to solutions.

This really is the heart of the issue for any sustainable resolution of a conflict. I have found it helpful to make space for various parties to fully say their bit and then encourage the opposing ones to try and explain the other parties view points, concern, and/or grievances.

Successfully navigating heated debates requires leadership experience, not just managerial skills. Cultivating a culture of growth, inclusion, and active listening becomes instrumental in fostering understanding and collaboration within a team.

Very simple technique to improve on this area, specially for us, opinionated leaders: Be the last one to talk! It amazes me everytime how much more I get from the debate and even how much my perspective change from begining to end.

It's ironic how a copious amount of time is dedicated to listening to music, television, and podcasts without interruption. Nonetheless, in every day conversation with a colleague the ability to listen with care often goes unchecked. ??Effective listening is an art. When engaged in a conversation ask oneself the following questions: 1. Have I removed all distractions to allow complete focus on the person & conversation at hand? 2. Am I allowing the other person to convey their thoughts without interrupting? 3. Would taking notes be helpful? (especially if it's a long conversation) 4. Should I lead and/or respond with facts or feelings? (decipher w/care) ??Typically people rejoice when you demonstrate their voice matters by listening!

A escuta ativa demonstra confian?a , desta forma ajuda a construir confian?a e diminui o comportamento defensivo das pessoas, facilitando assim um diálogo com solu??es assertivas para todos

This skill takes time to master. As a team leader, one of the most valuable skills is to remain impartial during times of animosity. Teams are made up of individuals who have different backgrounds, different perspectives, and different personalities. A leader must be able to navigate through misunderstandings, opposing points of view, all while maintaining the level of trust in place. Even if the agreement is to agree to disagree, common ground has to be established. Many times this is stepping back and reminding the team of the common goal of accomplishing the tasks and succeeding as a team. It’s important that each team member has the opportunity to speak and explain their viewpoint.

Finding connections is the best quick win. If you can pick out and demonstrate the commonalities, you can separate and isolate the areas of contention as the particular problem to be resolved, moving the communication from a debate about people or events, to conversation about ideas for resolution. Finding the connections gives you the first successes upon which to build better dialogue.

This is a crucial step in my experience, common ground is often available to be identified, shared and used to identify possible ways to resolve the issues. Key to identifying these areas is creation of the rules of the game, the discussion, areas of safety and areas of freedom, by being clear, equitable and overt in managing the rules, even the more timid participants can contribute.

The mediator needs to be a skilled communicator and impartial in handling conflict resolution. Both parties must agree on common grounds and must accept that they both have contributed to aggregating the issue instead of pointing fingers and playing blame games. It will be a real win-win situation when both of them put in their effort and play a fair part in resolving the issues.

1. Setting the stage from from the beginning i.e. leaders in the room setting boundaries when it comes to respectful behavior. For e.g. Its OK to to disagree respectfully. 2. Identifying the objective of the meeting. Perhaps even describe what an ideal outcome of the meeting looks like. 3. If the team breaks into a heated discussion, taking a step back and reminding the team of the common ground and objectives to achieve together.

In dieser Phase kann es sehr hilfreich sein, nicht nur die offensichtlichen Interessen im Konflikt herausgearbeitet zu haben, sondern auch die tats?chlichen Bedürfnisse dahinter. Der Kontext eines Konflikts kann viel gr??er sein als der konkrete Streit. Mithilfe von systemischen Fragetechniken k?nnen die Konfliktparteien eingeladen werden, einen Zustand zu beschreiben, in dem der Konflikt gel?st ist (woran merken Sie das?) oder was passieren muss, damit es noch schlimmer wird. Damit werden sie aus der Konfikt-trance geholt und alternative Szenarien in den Dialog als Option mit aufgenommen, um dann potentiell real zu werden.

While common ground is great and important it is only part of the puzzle. I often find when people are conflicting that we need to really sharpen the areas of disagreement. Too often people think they know the other's perspective and what they want, but much of the time they are wrong. So search for common ground, but also listen carefully for what people really need from a situation. It is at that point that the search for different creative options is possible. Putting up a white board or a computer screen and just thinking together does wonders. All you have to do is get people started by throwing out ideas and the magic happens. In many ways the hardest part is getting started.

Antes de mais nada, avalie se o conflito é sobre o processo ou sobre o ego, isso faz muita diferen?a. Fa?a a pergunta principal, qual o ganha principal com o seu ponto de vista? As pessoas nem sempre tem esse dado. Podemos ouvir, eu ja vi dar certo, em um tempo remoto alguém fez assim, eu vi em uma empresa que trabalhei. Isso tudo é importante, mas sobre a atual situa??o o que e em quanto tempo teremos resultado?

S'appuyer sur l'intelligence collective est un atout majeur pour faire émerger des idées novatrices, se poser ensemble les bonnes questions et trouver ensemble des solutions qui seront adoptées par l'ensemble pour que ce soit gagnant / gagnant pour tous.

As a team leader- I encourage a free flow no judgement “brainstorm” followed by identifying common ground. Listing the commonalities or using the “ nominal group technique “ can assist teams in moving forward.

I may differ from my colleagues here as well, but there is no software I've seen to replace human assessment, intuition, and empathy when seeking alignment from a team that can't seem to get there. If conflict resolution was like a decision tree, maybe software could lead them through the basic steps; however, a keen facilitator/coach is worth their weight in gold when it comes to observing, analyzing, evaluating, and working to resolve conflict - or lack of alignment.

I don’t think that a program could work better than a human in this case. You just need to listen, analyse and stay human. Your desire to help is a good start. Stay empathetic and neutral

There might be conflict resolution software which might give you some ideas how to resolve a conflict, but it's not effective as a mediator or arbitrator.

There is no software that can replace human-ware! The team needs to see its leaders laying ego aside and taking the high road: humility. And being humble is not being weak. Anyone can allow their ego to control their behavior - it’s easy to lose your temper; but it takes strength to say, “Team, we are going to have a cup of coffee and exchange ideas - grab the donuts Charlie!” That’s a leader I would follow; a leader who walks his talk and softens his punches when he’s pulling his team back together. Those leaders are real Pied Pipers - they make a tough job look easy. It’s because they do not always act like the big shot - they can stay eye level and still earn the respect of the team that works WITH him!

Metaphern sind eine gute Methode um Konflikte zu beschreiben und aufzulockern. Konfliktmapping dagegen ist ein Weg um Konflikte bildlich darzustellen, also aufzumalen - ein etwas kreativerer Ansatz. Eine Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse w?re dagegen ein Zugang für Konfliktparteien mit "statistischer" bzw. trockenerer Weltansicht ;-)

Check back in to make sure issues really have been resolved, especially for those who are internal or steady processors. A conversation may end in a healthy place, but one or more parties might later realize they are still unhappy with the outcome or did not get to contribute an important thought. I will usually set one-, two-, and one month-reminders on my calendar to check in with concerned parties. I will vary the contact method - an email one time, a call the second, and a quick chat message or in-person check-in at the one-month mark if everything is going well. The goal is not to dredge up the past; rather, it's to point out that you still care about the team's perspectives and want to head off lingering issues.

Always verify and encourage evolution. As you begin to implement with integrity, everyone is agreed upon their role and task. Set a clear expectation that if something is not working, anyone can address the situation with a possible alternative. As this practice continues, trust and respect build and conflict has become a vehicle for the evolution of people and for positive change.

If there's any part of the conflict resolution process that's easily missed by those mediators/seniors, it's this. Even while resolving a conflict itself is hard, consistent and steady implementation of the decided measures to fix the said issue - by virtue of the importance that it holds - is even harder. It is, in fact, the hardest when running a bigger company/firm, and so setting up the right mechanisms (automated) which dedicatedly monitor this easily skipped leg of the process is more crucial than one may think to keep the work ecosystem healthy and thriving.

Once common ground is identified, work together to establish actionable steps that move the team forward. Clearly define roles and responsibilities to ensure accountability. Schedule a follow-up meeting to check on the progress and ensure that the agreed-upon solutions are being implemented. Continuous communication is key to maintaining a positive team dynamic.

The truly successful leadership gauge is not just whether the immediate conflict/debate is resolved so that the team can move forward, but whether future disagreements are also less heated. It is far better to have less heated debates in the future, because root issues have been appreciated among the team members as they gain more others-focus, than to have only temporary calm until the next “storm” happens.

As a former therapist and in the leadership coaching work I do, I see that when our emotions are riding high, our fears can become highly activated, and it can be difficult to reconnect to our rational, logical self - the self that can be more calm and effective in relating to others and solving problems. In any productive dialogue, we need to say what needs to be said AND also hear what needs to be heard. One helpful tip for interrupting ineffective dialogue patterns is to take a break. Agree to put the disagreement on hold for 15 minutes. Encourage team members to go off by themselves, take time to breathe deeply, take a walk, go out in nature, etc. The idea is to interrupt the pattern to gain some distance, objectivity and clarity.

When there is a heated debate I like to do two things. First, I challenge myself and others to listen through the criticism for the underlying interests involved. Not only does that help you figure out what is really going on but it has a way of deescalating the situation. Second, do something unexpected -- a concept we call Negotiation Jujitsu. This action has a useful impact on the process and can push things in a different direction. So do the opposite of what others think you will do and sit back and watch the reactions. It can be a very powerful maneuver that changes the game.

As long as the heated debate is 1. Focused on moving forward and not returning to previous discussions, 2. Based on facts / data, and 3. Not moving to personal attacks, supporting and facilitating the discussion, itcan move the group to creative conclusions. I think it is really key to show, as a leader, a level of acceptance of healthy conflict.

When a team is in a heated debate, this is a great problem to have! Having passionate people who are willing to debate their perspectives and feel strongly about their work enough to challenge others and vice versa means your team, if directed into a healthy direction, can create profound positive outcomes! In times when I've experienced this, I've drawn a solid boundary on disrespecting each other, but thrown gas on the flames when it comes to solution creation. Often assisting teammates with breathwork to calm and center themselves followed by some emotion identifying can help all discover common ground, identify misunderstandings, and bond them in their passions and see the value of the fusion of their passions to find solutions.

I believe it is important to remove the “people” from the “problem” and help everyone to gain perspective and ‘be harder on the problem and softer on the people’. I teach the concept of “win, win, win” in my practice - the third win is for the shopper/consumer. A focus on the right outcome for them can help to de-escalate and reduce emotions.