Emotional intelligence consists of four key skills:
Awareness of one's own emotions
Managing one's own emotions
Awareness of others' emotions
Managing the atmosphere in interactions with others
Here are some signs that you might need to work on your emotional intelligence:
You often feel that others don't understand what you're trying to say, which frustrates you.
You are surprised when your words or jokes upset others, and you think they overreact.
You don't particularly care whether your colleagues like you or not.
You rush to share your opinion in a conversation and defend it with great passion.
You have the same high expectations for others as you do for yourself.
You believe most of your team's problems are caused by others.
You get annoyed when others expect you to understand their feelings.
The more interest and concern a leader shows for their subordinates' problems, the higher the employees' satisfaction. As practice shows, only leaders with emotional intelligence can achieve employee loyalty. Emotional intelligence represents the ability to understand and manage emotions, and it is a skill that can and should be developed. In most cases, emotional intelligence improves not in childhood or adolescence but in adulthood, as personal life experience is needed for its development.
Conflicts are an integral part of forming any team. In and of themselves, they don't carry a negative connotation; in fact, they are important for generating effective ideas and solutions. The problem arises when conflicts escalate to an acute stage and go unresolved for a long time, demotivating the team.
Resolving conflicts is a complex, multi-step process that involves diagnosing the conflict, preventing, containing, and regulating conflicts. The process of managing a conflict largely depends on the participant's position, their interests, and the methods they use to prevent the conflict from escalating.
Most people adaptively use various conflict interaction strategies depending on the situation, even without special training.
However, understanding the characteristics of the main types of conflict behavior, their advantages, and limitations is important
for conflict prevention and effective people management in general. For this reason, it is appropriate to briefly review the main
conflict resolution strategies (based on the Thomas-Kilmann model):
Confrontation/Competition
Accommodation
Avoidance
Compromise
Collaboration
Confrontation/Competition involves showing one's strength and invulnerability in front of the opponent, as well as the ability to easily resolve the conflict in one's favor without their consent. This strategy may include tactics such as bluffing or deception.
It is recommended when:
The outcome is very important to you, and you are heavily invested in your solution, with high stakes.
You have enough authority to make a decision.
A decision needs to be made quickly, and you have the power to do so.
You feel there is no other choice and nothing to lose.
You are in a critical situation that requires immediate response.
Accommodation is typically chosen when the opponent's strength is superior. According to this strategy, you adapt to the opponent's interests and make concessions, up to capitulation.
It is recommended when:
You sacrifice little for a greater benefit.
Concessions or capitulation do not harm you significantly.
You are not particularly concerned about the issue.
You want to maintain peace with the opponent.
You believe that preserving good relationships long-term is more important than defending your interests.
You understand the outcome is far more important to the other person than to you.
You realize you are not in the right.
You have little power or chances of winning.
The strategy of accommodation is ineffective when there is a desire to quickly "get rid" of the conflict. The delayed effect of such a conflict will be much more destructive, because getting rid of it does not mean solving it.
Avoidance strategy involves demonstrating to the opponent a lack of understanding of their conflicting intentions. With words, tone, mannerisms, and gestures, you convey:
There is no problem.
This is not my problem.
It's not a high-priority matter.
I have no authority over this.
The conflict is unpleasant and destructive, so it's better to avoid it altogether.
It is recommended when:
You need to diffuse a tense situation.
You want to buy time.
You know you won't be able to resolve the conflict in your favor.
There is no clear, active threat from the other side.
You are gathering information about the opponent and preparing counterarguments.
You don't want to take responsibility for the conflict.
This strategy becomes ineffective when the conflict situation begins to pose a real threat to your interests.
Compromise strategy is most effective when both sides want the same thing but know it's unattainable for them both. By understanding the structure and essence of the conflict, the parties agree to partially satisfy their desires and partially meet the desires of the other party, exchanging concessions and negotiating to reach a compromise solution.
It is recommended when:
You want to reach an agreement quickly.
Both sides have equal power and conflicting interests.
You need a quick solution due to time or efficiency constraints.
A temporary solution will suffice.
Short-term benefits are acceptable to you.
Other approaches to solving the problem have proven ineffective.
Your desire is not of great importance, and you are willing to adjust the goal.
Compromise allows for maintaining relationships, and you prefer to get something rather than nothing.
You are ready to make concessions to reach an agreement.
Collaboration strategy is the most appropriate approach for resolving and satisfying the interests of both parties. However, it requires time and the ability for each side to articulate their needs, listen to each other, and develop alternative solutions. The absence of one of these elements makes this approach ineffective.
It is recommended when:
You can only win if your partner also wins.
The problem is important to both sides.
You have time to work on the problem.
You and your opponent are informed about the problem, and both sides' desires are known.
You can articulate your interests and listen to each other.
Both parties have equal power and are seeking a solution.
The problem is very important, and neither wants to walk away from it.
You have close, long-term, and interdependent relationships.
Collaboration is the most difficult strategy to achieve, but it allows for the most mutually satisfying solution in complex and important conflict situations.
Important Note!!!
It is essential to understand that there are no "right" or "wrong" strategies—only appropriate or inappropriate ones. Each of these strategies is effective only under specific conditions, and none can be considered the best. An experienced leader should be able to use each of these strategies effectively, consciously choosing based on the specific circumstances while also considering their personal preferences for conflict resolution strategies.
There are several general principles for managing conflicts, including:
Institutionalizing the conflict: Establishing norms and procedures for resolving or mitigating conflicts. Typically includes:
Prohibiting violent means
Limiting the number of participants and conflict areas
Accepting specific rules for conflict resolution—organizational or ethical norms
Oversight by third parties (government bodies, arbitrators, etc.)
Legitimizing conflict resolution procedures:
Recognizing the legitimacy and fairness of specific actions to resolve a conflict, even if established procedures differ from outdated legal norms. This requires documenting and broadly informing all participants about the procedures.
Structuring conflicting groups:
Defining participants, representatives, and influential centers within each group. This helps in engaging those ready for dialogue, negotiation, and agreement.
Reduction:
Gradually mitigating the conflict by lowering confrontation levels
In addition to general principles, there are many specific rules for conflict management:
Rationalizing the conflict and reducing its emotional intensity.
Focusing on real interests rather than stated positions.
Segmenting the conflict into smaller components to find points of agreement.
Distinguishing between the participant and the issue.
Recognizing the relativity of rivalry; the opposing side isn't the ultimate enemy.
Limiting areas of competition to avoid core values of the opponent.
Acknowledging the complex nature of each side.
Limiting conflict in time to prevent escalation.
Preferring gradual improvement over seeking absolute resolution.
The value of this method lies in its systematic approach to a problem.
Implementing this technique involves the following steps:
Step 1: Outline the problem briefly, without delving deeply or trying to solve it immediately.
Step 2: Identify the main parties involved. These can be individuals, teams, departments, or entire organizations.
Step 3: Determine each party's genuine needs, including their main needs and concerns regarding the conflict.
Examples of needs:
Comfort at work
Respect and recognition
Creative fulfillment
Security
Examples of concerns:
Fear of failure
Financial collapse
Fear of rejection
Loss of control
Loneliness
Fear of criticism
Job insecurity
Graphically displaying the needs and concerns of conflicting parties broadens the understanding of the interaction, creating more
space for potential solutions. The "Conflict Map" helps to keep discussions formal, avoid excess emotions, create empathy, and
generate new directions for problem-solving.
Sometimes an employee repeatedly fails to complete tasks or delivers results that are far from expectations.
Many novice managers quickly label such employees as "unmotivated" or "weak performers".
Depending on the label, they either try to motivate or replace the employee with a "stronger" one.
In reality, there can be at least four possible reasons why an employee can't complete a task:
Unclear Goal/Instruction: The employee misunderstood the goal or instruction.
Both parties are responsible here, and it's recommended to use the S.M.A.R.T. goal-setting technique to minimize
misunderstandings.
Cannot Do It: This could mean a lack of resources—time, access, equipment, etc.
For example, if the employee is juggling multiple projects, they might struggle to prioritize effectively.
In this case, resource limitations are the issue.
Does Not Know How: The employee may lack the necessary skills, even if they genuinely believe they have them.
A task that seems manageable could turn out to be more challenging than expected.
Does Not Want To: This is a genuine motivation problem.
The task might not align with the employee's interests or growth goals, or they might not see the importance of doing it.
The following is a suggested approach to dealing with a person labeled as a "low performer":
Conduct a personal conversation to gather details.
Collect information, including from colleagues if needed.
Identify the root cause.
Highlight the problem to the project leader or direct supervisor if it's not easily fixable.
Attempt to resolve the root cause, and if unsuccessful, consider rotating the employee.