Workplace Disputes: How To Pick Up The Mess After A Gun Fire

The old horse lifted its head unhurried: "I have no other meaning. The content of our communication involves the development direction of the project. We should let the leader know about it. What do you think?"

"Is it because I disagree with the process you mentioned? Did you say a few excesses and bad words?

"Why are you so impulsive? I'm just making some suggestions. It's your responsibility. You can handle it yourself."

The old horse turned and left.

Before leaving work, the old man sent a message to Xiao Cai through MSN: "cough, what do you say we are fighting about, not all for the company.

It's not worth it. Let's eat together after work.

stay

Let's briefly analyze the level of dispute in this case:

Mail dispute.

Xiao Cai and Lao Ma fought fiercely in the mail. This is one of the common ways of arguing in the workplace. Its basic form is that the two sides start confrontation for one thing in the mail, you say your reason, I say my reason, fight against several rounds of tit for tat.

The characteristic of the mail dispute is that everyone will not see each other at the two ends of the computer. They will not be blush and have plenty of time to think about the strategy of fighting and refute each other's views one by one.

The battle for mail has grown to the most intense, in which one of the parties sends mail CC to people outside the war, especially the copy leader.

This is a little bit similar to the pattern of "neighborhood assessment" in the street, which is aimed at gaining understanding and sympathy, or even finding helpers to curb the arrogance of the opponent.

Argue face to face.

Little Cai finally could not help being mad because the old horse first upgraded the war by copying.

Xiao Cai's angry accusations seem to be impulsive. Actually, there are more practical purposes here.

He didn't choose to argue with the old horse in front of many colleagues, but pulled him out of the office.

He is going to announce this to the old horse through the way of face drums. I am not afraid of you, and you should not offend my duty territory.

This is a strategy to effectively clarify the sphere of influence but not embarrass the opponent.

Reconciliation means.

After all, he has had many years of experience in the field of work. Through this round of testing, he has already understood the characteristics of CAI, insisting on his professional opinions and insisting on more encouragement and respect from his partners rather than making irresponsible remarks.

Xiao Cai is also a person who needs unity. There will be many cooperation in the future.

So the old horse chose to "turn the focus of contradictions into reality".

This is just a simple dispute scene. It should be known that disputes in the workplace are often different from those in the street, and often have a deeper meaning.

Disputes also have values.

Argument is what we usually call a quarrel, oral arguments and arguments.

In the workplace, disputes are a kind of middle level warfare, which is more direct than the heart of the mind, more simple than the fight or political wrist.

No one wants to be evil with others, but when his interests and bottom line are repeatedly violated, it seems that he must speak frankly and fury to make his position clear by color and by warning, which shows his resolute attitude to safeguard his rights and interests.

When a person on both sides of the exchange thinks about this, the workplace dispute follows.

Quarrels are unavoidable in the relationship of close or close contact.

People's emotions are very strange. They can be released, controlled, compressed, and deeply planted.

In the workplace, we contact and communicate with all kinds of people, live together for a long time, and even engage in competition. Inevitably, there are some interests. This also determines that workplace disputes are inevitable.

Whether it is because of trivial conflicts, or because of their own guns and fire, or because of the gossip of the bomb attack, stay in a circle for a long time, to tell the truth, but occasionally will be mad.

In fact, all acts in the workplace are not accidental. They are the result of value measurement or balance of interests.

Of course, disputes are no exception.

Dispute is a very important way of communication, which also reflects its value.

When the two sides quarreled fiercely, some problems began to become clearer, and the two sides produced mutual regret, making it easy to make mutual understanding and concession.

Of course, this kind of intense communication mode can only be used selectively.

The second value of the dispute is demarcation.

When a person's workplace is subjected to unbridled aggression, a quarrel becomes a weapon.

The violent retaliating against each other not only sets up authority, but also warns the parties and other onlookers to tell them that this is my site and can not be violated.

In the same way, quarrelling is like pesticide, spraying too many times, the other side will produce resistance, and pesticide will lose power.

The third value of the dispute is the verdict.

The purpose of a quarrel is not to vent emotions but to distinguish right from wrong.

In fact, the two sides could have done it calmly. If we can not solve it, we need the referee to come forward.

If the referee does not pay enough attention to these trivial matters, the heated arguments between the two sides can definitely attract the attention of the referee, and give a ruling soon, so that things can be pushed forward quickly.

There is another value in dispute: catharsis.

The accumulation of depression in the minds of some of our savings has been swept away by the excitement that has been accumulated for many years. This is the advantage of catharsis.

People need to vent properly, but if the dispute is just to vent, it is better to play a game or to have a drink.

It is not difficult to reconcile.

After the conflict, it is bound to face the problem of how to clean up the mess.

Quarrel is a matter of both sides. There is only unilateral accusation and provocation, and there is no unilateral quarrel, so reconciliation must also be the two sides.

If only one side has a good desire to reconcile, it will not be difficult if the other party is not totally ungrateful or uncooperative.

There are several common ways of reconciliation.

Natural digestion: some office disputes are ridiculous after all. They are not the fault of anyone, or two people are wrong, or no one can really figure out who is wrong.

It is the mystery of reconciliation that we do not study carefully.

High attitude method: the traditional concept of who is the first to bow down is cowardly, that is, to admit defeat. In fact, in the minds of most working people, the first person to actively communicate and try to reconcile is a respectable and admirable gesture.

You might as well go over and take the initiative to stretch out your hand, arouse your confidence with a positive attitude, or send a text message, "Hey, are you still angry?" "Hello, eat together after work."

The paradox pfer method: as old Ma did in the previous example, he tried to put the focus of contradiction on the virtual third party.

"Why? It's all for the sake of the company. We are both working. There is no need for such tit for tat."

"In fact, I think so. What you say is also very reasonable."

Finally, it is important to stress that since workplace disputes can not be avoided, we can look at this matter from the perspective of value and measure the gains and losses: if it is worth fighting for, then we should let go of our concerns and let go of those workplace dogmas and boldly fight for our due rights. If it is not worth fighting for at all, then it is better to settle matters and deal with them in a win-win and cooperative manner. The world itself is like this. There are good wishes for peaceful development, and there are blockades and wars.