This incident happened a couple of years ago when two of my friends (A and B) and I were collaborating with a non-profit organization to plan a family day event.
B thought that the family day event should be an elaborate one, with activities and games for families to engage in, as well as performers to provide entertainment. Her plan was costly and hard to achieve given the limited amount of time we had. However, B wanted families to be assured a fun-filled and eventful day which they can look forward to.
A on the other hand, wanted it to be a simple affair. She argued that B’s idea was over-the-top and costly; she felt it was inappropriate for a family day. She suggested that we instead, simply cater food and families can bond with one another over a meal.
I believe that interpersonal conflict arose not because they had different ideas and personalities, but due to the lack of empathy and understanding for one another. Both A and B were insistent on their own ideas and refused to accept the others’ suggestions. I found myself being caught in the middle as each of their idea had its own merits and both stemmed from good intentions. Thus I proposed that we have a combination of both of their suggestions. Despite my efforts in trying to get them to understand the other’s viewpoint, a compromise could not be reached.
It was getting difficult to work together as the tension between A and B increased. As the deadline drew closer and still have no concrete plan, we used A’s idea due to the lack of time.
How would one get two headstrong people to empathize and compromise with one another (especially when both have valid reasons for their actions)?
Difference over technical issues can be solved with the use of SOP (standard operating procedures). It’s the difference in ideology that’s most gives people the most problems. After reading your post, I felt that you have more or less subconsciously sided with A given that you had wrote “Her plan was costly and hard to achieve given the limited amount of time we had”. Then it may be difficult for you to be neutral in this matter since you may have adopted A’s stance. Or maybe I am wrong?
ReplyDeleteGiven that this is a “battle” between 2 stubborn people, I would probably let it be. Yes, it sounds counter intuitive. But there’s really nothing much I can do since they both are stubborn to the core. I’ll just leave them to their own devices and let things iron out on their own. There’s a saying in mandarin that goes “船到桥头自然直”meaning that things will smooth out eventually. And this is also the solution you have unknowingly adopted since they adopted A’s plan eventually due to time constrain issues. Besides, no discord, no concord. Disagreements between 2 parties often lead to a better relationship. Think of the amount of squabbles you had with your closest friends and how you relationship have come out of it stronger. Sometimes, the best solution is to let nature run its own course.
In this particular case, I think it is near impossible to make both of them compromise. I doubt that giving either party more time will allow them to understand each other’s perspective. Therefore, in this type of situation, engage a third party with authority on the matter and let both of them fight it out to convince the third party that their suggestion is more suitable. For example, your team can request the non-profit organization to be the third party to make the final decision on whose plan to adopt. This method eliminates the chance of you being the swing vote. Therefore, you will not feel being caught in the middle. In addition, the preparation for the event can finally proceed without further tension between A and B since a decision has been finalized.
ReplyDeleteSuch a method to resolve conflicts via decisions by a third party is adopted on the international stage in the form of the International Court of Arbitration.
I have to say that the ideas from both the parties involved were polar opposites of each other and perhaps that was why it was so difficult for a compromise to be reached. In such cases, people are often "blinded" due to their passion for their respective ideas. Perhaps it would be great for a third party (such as yourself in this case) to thoroughly analyse the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal with both parties. I personally believe that a compromise can only be reached when each person is convinced that his proposal can be complemented by another, thus creating a synergistic effect.
ReplyDeleteI totally empathise with the difficulties of being the person who is stuck in this tug-of-war between two parties. The morale of the entire working group is affected and it does no good to the working process at all. As such, we can see from this that emotional intelligence is critical in settings such as workplaces since it has an important role in ensuring a positive and cooperative working culture.