Separation actually creates more problems than it solves. First, it takes more time to interview each person individually. Second, each disputant is more likely to distort the conflict when the other is absent.
Likewise, it is easier for the manager to be swayed by manipulative and persuasive tactics. But the third and most important reason has to do with trust and credibility. Interviewed separately, each disputant is likely to suspect that you have sided with the other. Not only do such suspicions encourage exaggerations and fabrications, but they make it difficult for you to assume the role of impartial mediator. Finally, when you interview separately, the implication is that you are going to decide what action will be taken. When you interview disputants in each other's presence you set the stage for their solving their own problems with one another.
Keep Disputants on the Topic
In an employment interview you know what topic areas to explore, but this is generally not the case in a conflict interview, where frequently you will know nothing about the problem. The goal of the conflict interview is to find out each disputant's perception of the problem. If a disputant gets sidetracked into telling the adversary's story or describing other people's opinions, get him or her back on the topic, "What is the problem as you see it?" you can ask. When disputants get off the topic, interrupt and use a probe to bring them back. In general, maintain a here-and-now focus: Angry people often go into lengthy historical accounts of previous conflicts; you can interrupt by saying, "What's the problem today?" Even when there's a backlog of unresolved conflicts between disputants, it is best to focus on one problem, the most current one. Successful change in one area will encourage disputants to work toward resolving other problems.
Maintain Control
In any interview, whatever its purpose, maintaining control is an important concern. When interviewing two or more disputants, control is vital. Even if the disputants are not overtly angry at the beginning of the interview, their anger is likely to be reignited when they hear their adversary stating the other side of the dispute. Angry people often forget their manners: They rudely interrupt in an attempt to correct the other's version and sway the interviewer's opinion; they raise their voices, call people names, and sometimes make threats, such outbursts are obviously counterproductive, but you should expect them to occur and be prepared to control them. Of course, the prospect of controlling emotional outbursts is precisely what is frightening about conflicts. Fortunately, there are specific control techniques that are easy to learn and that in most cases will eliminate this threat. You have several control tools available: your authority, ground rules, your body itself, and your voice.
Using your authority: It is not advisable to assert your authority too blatantly. When confronted head on with authority, people have a tendency to rebel. Naturally, you want to avoid this because it makes your task harder. Instead, communicate authority through your manner in handling the interview. Subtly but firmly convey the message, "I expect you to cooperate by following my instructions." This message, combined with the awareness that you can enact negative consequences (termination, reprimand, withholding promotion or privileges), is very effective. Use the setting to emphasize your authority. Whenever possible, meet with disputants in your office. Make a formal appointment.
In most cases the disputants will want you to see them as being reasonable and justified in their complaints. This is a powerful weapon for you, because they will realize the danger of undermining themselves if they become unruly or obstinate. On the other hand, disputants often try in subtle ways to enrage their adversaries so as to make them look bad. This is what you must control.
Setting ground rules: It is easier to establish control immediately than to regain it once it has been lost. Don't wait until control becomes a problem-use a preventive approach. Ground rules are invaluable.
A ground rule is an explicit statement of what you expect and what the disputants can expect from you. I suggest that you begin all conflict resolution sessions with a ground rule stated something like this:
"I’m going to begin by finding out what's been going on. I will talk to you one at a time. I want to know how each of you sees the problem. OK, I'm going to begin with Joe and then I'll talk to Sam." Often this is all that is necessary. The disputants know that if they interrupt or argue, they will be breaking your explicit prescription. If you begin to lose control, stop and restate the ground rules: "Sam, right now I'm listening to Joe's side. I will get to you next" or "Joe, I heard your side -now I want to hear Sam's story." Naturally, you need to use a firm voice so that you project the message, "I expect you to be quiet and listen."
Under most circumstances, have disputants tell their stories to you.
While one disputant is talking, the other should be listening-but not participating. Allowing disputants to talk directly to one another requires too much risk of losing control. Set the ground rules for this procedure: When the disputant you are interviewing begins talking to the other, say something like, "Talk to me, Joe." Sometimes you may have to repeat the phrase: "Talk to me, Joe. Talk to me!"
Using Your Body: Where and how you sit or stand and the way you use physical gestures can help control disputants. Sitting behind your desk may enhance your authority and give you a sense of security, but it makes the job of control more difficult. From behind the desk, it is almost impossible to use physical control: If the disputants should get out of hand by bickering angrily or making physical threats, you will be caught behind the desk. Avoid this; place yourself physically between them, in this position you can quickly lean forward to block the disputants' view of one another, and because it is difficult to shout at someone who can't be seen, the disputants will then direct their remarks to you. This will allow you to regain control quickly with little interruption. Sitting between disputants allows you to stand up when the more subtle control methods fail.
Seat disputants in comfortable chairs, if possible: It is best for you to sit on the edge of a straight-back chair. Such an arrangement allows you to employ the maximum control potential of the environment.
Disputants are more inclined to relax in comfortable chairs and less likely to jump up. (If you have only one easy chair, place the angrier disputant in it.) On the other hand, sitting on the edge of a hard chair allows you to move rapidly. When you fear that disputants may present a physical control problem: You and the table create a barrier between the two rivals.
Your hands and the gestures you make with them are an important control tool. The standing figure illustrates a gesture that communicates "wait" or "quiet." Often this simple gesture alone is sufficient to calm disputants, and it can be used without either looking at the disputant or interrupting the interview. Encourage disputants to speak by leaning toward them and gesturing upward with your palm. Most of us use such gestures spontaneously. Avoid pointing or shaking your finger, since people tend to feel demeaned and antagonized by such gestures.
Your Voice: The pitch and volume of your voice can be modified to exert more or less force. In general, the louder the volume and the lower the pitch, the more force or control you will exert. It is important that your control level be appropriate to the situation. Once you have made a strong display of force by raising your voice, it will be difficult to back down. As a rule of thumb, start in a low tone and increase the degree of force in your voice or gestures to match those of the disputants.
