Taking Sides
By: Sorin Dumitrascu
Tags: Management, Leadership, Teamwork, Conflict Management, Conflict Resolution

Taking Sides

At the very least, you will upset one party

Photo by fieldwork on depositphotos

Reaching Acceptable Outcomes

You need your colleagues. You have to continue working with them. Therefore, it is important that you do not let conflict become so aggressive that it destroys your working relationship with your colleagues.

What you should be aiming for is an outcome that is satisfactory to both of you, but which does not surrender too many of your interests for the sake of the relationship.

The way to achieve this is to use an integrative bargaining style instead of a distributive bargaining style.

Integrative bargaining style — this is based upon the assumption that through compromise, both sides can achieve some outcome, and the intention is to maximize both outcomes.

— this is based upon the assumption that through compromise, both sides can achieve some outcome, and the intention is to maximize both outcomes. Distributive bargaining style — this is based upon the assumption that the outcome is fixed, so that if you gain, someone else must lose. It is often also referred to as competitive bargaining.

The integrative approach is based upon the attitude that the best outcome of any conflict is when everybody gains something. An approach that yields solutions that are acceptable to all will feature three elements:

1. Planning — you need to distinguish between what you want and what you will accept (the bottom line). There is often a difference, which gives you flexibility. The other person will have their own range of wants. Try to identify their interests and establish what lies behind the position that they take. Then decide what you are willing to trade to help them get some satisfaction too.

2. Adopt a rational approach — in the actual negotiation, you need to adopt a rational approach and focus on the issues. Conflict is inevitably emotional, but personalizing it tends to be counter-productive — hurt feelings only serve to deepen conflict. State clearly what you want, explain why you want it, and show that you are willing to make compromises. Apply rational problem-solving techniques to safely move from argument to counter argument.

3. Establish tangible outcomes — you must work on outcomes that are not just platitudes. It is easy to agree to something, but then do nothing. Make sure that whatever you agree has direct benefits for both parties, is measurable, and includes a deadline. This gives you objective tools for monitoring the implementation of the resolution.

If you want to be successful in handling conflict with others, then do not forget how to plan the discussion, and conduct yourself rationally to produce an outcome that gives tangible benefits to all.

Techniques to Avoid Taking Sides

When conflict is the norm rather than the exception, you can be pulled into countless pointless arguments that sap your energy. Taking sides in someone else’s conflict is risky. At the very least, you will upset one party. If you face the prospect of being drawn into conflict, one way to survive with the least discomfort is to avoid taking sides.

Not taking sides sounds like a simple approach, but it can be difficult initially. However, even if it is difficult, it is better than being drawn into fruitless arguments. You can use one of the two techniques for avoiding taking sides in a dispute:

Refusal — simply make no comment and, therefore, no commitment. Prevaricate — take so much time to consider both sides that the argument dies out or is resolved before you have to commit to either side.

Both of these approaches need to be carefully handled so as not to alienate your warring colleagues. You need to leave them feeling positive — or at worst, neutral — about you.

Refusal

If you make your statement of refusal politely and clearly, then you can minimize any negative reactions. You must phrase it so that both parties understand that it applies to both of them equally.

Refusing to take sides does not mean blindly ignoring the conflict. To avoid offending the disputing parties, you need to give a reason for not getting involved. Your reason could be that both arguments have equal merit or conversely, that neither argument is justifiable. You may also cite a lack of knowledge about the issue.

This involves lengthy questioning of both sides to establish the arguments. Conflict often leads to emotional appeals, but do not be swayed; focus on the facts of the arguments, not the feelings.

Prevarication

Listen to what both parties have to say so that they know you are not being rude. Then say you will consider the arguments carefully — this is basically your way of evading the decision. You must emphasize that you are thinking deeply about the merits of each point of view and that this could take you a long time.

Prevarication is a wise technique to use when the argument is based on emotions rather than facts. Time out may allow feelings to cool down, and the dispute will fade out. It is also a useful approach when the arguments are incomplete — with time, the parties may find some additional piece of information that will help the resolve the issue without you.

For many people, outright refusal or prevarication contradicts their instincts. Arguments are like whirlpools — they pull you in, and some people offer less resistance than others. Arguments can also be stimulating and invigorating, which is attractive to some people. But when conflicts are continuous, instead of being energizing, they can drain energy. This is when not taking sides becomes a more sensible option.

Remaining neutral is not always easy as work colleagues can be very demanding of your support. But these techniques will help you to delay taking sides, hopefully until the conflict fades away by itself.