“Conflict is an escalation of a disagreement, which is its common prerequisite, and is characterized by the existence of conflict behavior, in which the beings (team members) are actively trying to damage one another.”
[Prof Michael Nicholson – Wikipedia]
Therefore, if you felt I was ‘actively trying to damage you’, there is a good chance of nipping in the bud any ‘escalation of a disagreement’ using an agreed to intervention, when it is just a minor quarrel or spat. By breaking the intervention into three steps or phases, allows you to hold me to account without retaliating with an equally damaging rhetoric, backstabbing, or snitching to the boss.
Thus the potential for escalation is nullified, in theory.
Step 1 – Caution: gives me a chance to recognize my offense. If I can acknowledge it, then we move on, simple, all is forgiven. But if I challenged or ignored your caution, you could take it to…
Step 2 – Objection: gives me one more chance to see the error of my ways and give a simple apology, or it goes to…
Step 3 – Stop: at which point we stop, and you can wait for an acceptable apology from me, and it is also posted on and reviewed by the peer review network.
Knowing and understanding this intervention can be used from the start should act as a prophylactic measure on our egos taking over our rational thinking and behavior, especially when a caution or an objection is used to assist our accountability.
Splitting the conflict and intervention into three levels also allows us to create an algorithm and app to collate, monitor and more objectively measure the real-world data of a team’s conflict behavior performance, comparing it with the team’s overall work performance and allow our AI to predict a team’s future success or failure.
#psychologicalsafety #orgaizationpsychology
Object123 
Leave a Reply