I think anyone learning English, especially working professionals, should have a LinkedIn Learning account. It is a good way to work on your English while picking up solid skills and tips from people actually doing the job. I wrote this mainly for myself, but it doubles as a review of a genuinely useful course.
The lessons on LinkedIn Learning come directly from experts with years in the field. They are not overly academic or short on practicality the way some other platforms I have tried are. I have just finished Managing Team Conflict, and here is what I took from it.
Five basic types of tension in any team
Excelling versus meeting deadlines (speed vs. quality). The deadline is end of business Friday. One person wants to deliver on time and accept the quality that allows. The other wants to push the deadline to next week so the client gets excellent work.
Inclusive versus efficient decision-making. One person wants to finalise the plan by lunchtime using the data already available. The other wants input from other departments first, even though it takes longer.
Prioritising the client versus the company. Should the team work overtime on the company's budget to serve the client better, or stick to the original schedule and accept that the client gets less?
Innovation versus existing capabilities. One person finds a promising new tool and wants to adopt it. The other thinks they should focus on doing the current work well.
Details versus the big picture. One person spots errors in a contract about to be signed and proposes revisions. The other dismisses minor details as long as the job gets done.
Conflict resolution in four steps
Step 1. Encourage both parties to understand each other's perspective. Speak to each privately to understand what they think and why they acted as they did, including what they believe the other person is thinking.
Step 2. Evaluate the nature of the issue by weighing the objective facts and working out what they are genuinely disagreeing about. Check back with each person and restate their position to confirm you have understood it.
Step 3. Talk to each one individually about what they want to happen next, and explore whether there is a way to meet halfway.
Step 4. If it persists, bring both parties together with a neutral third person to resolve it.
Afterwards. Give the two of them a small task to do together. It normalises the relationship. Often people have stopped being angry but still feel awkward, and a simple shared job gets them back on comfortable terms.
What I am still thinking about
The process is long. These four steps suit a major conflict where you have time. What about the very small disagreements inside a single working session, say during an Away Day where a report is due by the end of the day? How do you compress this and apply it flexibly?
Cultural differences. Amy Gallo co-writes for Harvard Business Review in the US, so this presumably works well there. How should it flex for the UK, Europe and Asian workplace cultures?
The facilitator's role. You guide people towards making the decision themselves. But should you ever make the final call, and does doing so cost you goodwill?
One further reflection: a company's values end up driving how decisions and disagreements get settled day to day. A company that prizes integrity will chase down the full picture before acting, while one that prizes efficiency will treat the information already to hand as sufficient.