Conflict moderation

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conflict moderation is an independent concept of mediation , in the sense of "mediation in conflict", which uses the approach of business moderation and the method of clarification aid , as well as the approach of systemic counseling for conflict resolution in organizations . The conflict moderator is not committed to any of the agreements sought by the conflicting parties. The aim is to clarify relationships and conflicts between the participants as a basis for the solution approaches and agreements to be found after the conflict moderation.

Differentiation from other methods of conflict management

Conflict moderation is an approach to resolving conflicts in a business or organizational context. This includes support for conflict between two people , for example in the context of leadership and team conflicts edited. Based on the work of Gregory Bateson , a distinction is made between conflicts in a symmetrical relationship and conflicts in a complementary relationship. For example, conflicts between managing directors or employees with equal rights and conflicts between a manager and an employee or a project manager and his project team . The following principles apply to conflict moderation:

  • Conflict moderation is a targeted and expedient service for the parties seeking advice. Participation is as voluntary as possible, but may be compulsory in the context of dependent, employee work .
  • In contrast to "classic" mediation , the work is not structured according to the Harvard model , but according to the moderation cycle .
  • The intention of the conflict moderation is to clear up psychological "injuries", it is about psychological "scratches, scars and wounds".
  • The aim is to resolve the conflict, not a (written) agreement. Agreements are "desired waste products" of the clarification process, not a condition for success.
  • The participants come to an agreement themselves, no deputy, no superior, no arbitrator, no judge makes decisions for (or in relation to) those concerned.

History and theoretical background

Conflict moderation in its current form was developed by the German educator and moderation expert Josef W. Seifert on the basis of business moderation . The origin lies in the 1980s, when both the clarification aid and the moderation cycle emerged as a meta-structural model for moderation. The combination of both concepts with the theoretical foundations and practical methods of systemic organizational consulting established modern conflict moderation. Systemic thinking and working in the " advisory area of conflict moderation" means that organizations and organizational units, work teams and project groups are viewed as social systems, that is, as a whole that consists of elements that are related to one another. The focus is on the interactions (relationships) between the elements, not on the inherent properties of the elements themselves. It is not about the "hard reality " as it would represent an expertise , but about the processing of the " soft reality " of communication phenomena between people.

method

The conflict moderation uses the six steps of the classic moderation cycle with the process phases “Get in”, “Collect”, “Select”, “Edit”, “Plan” and “Complete” as a structural model.

  • Step 1: “Getting in” is about clarifying the organizational framework and finding the emotional way to start conflict management.
  • Step 2: “Collecting” serves to get to know the individual perspectives (constructions of reality) of those involved in relation to the current situation, which was experienced as unsatisfactory. The aim of this second process phase is to have an overview of the topics to be worked on.
  • Step 3: When "selecting", the conflict moderator selects the topic that is to be dealt with first. In conflict moderation, in contrast to mediation according to the Harvard model , “quick wins” are deliberately avoided and the topic that harbors the greatest conflict potential is chosen, since solutions in the matter are viewed as the logical consequence of clarified relationships.
  • Step 4: The "processing" is the central process phase, since the topics are processed in a "decelerated dialogue". In addition to a change of perspective, the aim is to "heal relationship structures".
  • Step 5: "Planning" means in conflict moderation the repeated "tapping" of the processed topics for any necessary or desired (written) agreements. However , legally binding agreements are not made, as is the case in classic mediation , but agreements based on trust. An agreement could, however, be to seek legally binding agreements afterwards.
  • Step 6: When "closing", the joint process is reflected on and assessed, and the session is concluded.

Conflict moderation is particularly differentiated from other approaches to mediation by the explicit structure of the clarification process and the consciously not neutral, but rather impartial attitude of the moderator . In this context, impartiality means that the moderator always takes the side of one party in the course of conflict resolution - for a short time - if he deems it necessary and it serves to resolve the conflict. To do this, conflict moderation uses "doubling", which is borrowed from the communication technique of "doubling" from Moreno's psychodrama . Conflict moderation regards “difficult” feelings, such as anger or resignation, as “ pseudo giants ” that get smaller the closer you get to them. You-messages do not have to be “embellished” into I-messages in order for them to be said. Topics do not have to be “objectified” in order to be processed. A central principle of conflict moderation is therefore: openness must be sincere, not “beautiful”!

See also

literature