See What’s Really There – When supposedly resolved conflicts continue to impact at a deeper level

Dr. Ariane Bentner

Overview
At the end of about four months of intensive coach­ing with three managers from a graduate school, a situation arose that was completely unexpected for me: I was given the task of clarifying and resolving a conflict that had been smoldering for many years at the management level. The reason for this was the imminent retirement of the head of the institute, who wanted to hand over the institute to his successor in a “proper” state and saw shortcomings on his part.
We had worked on the conflict issues in a surprisingly constructive way over seven sessions of about two hours each, mainly using the clarification support method (developed by Thomann/Schultz v. Thun). At the end of the conflict coaching, it became apparent in the concluding session that, although we had been able to resolve all the con­tentious issues at the management level, these issues had now “reached” the level below (the employees), where they were being acted out with correspond­ing effect. For example, the different departments were no longer communicating with each other. However, restructuring measures meant that close­ly interlocked communication between the units would be indispensable in the future. This caused the three managers to panic, as they did not know exactly how things would continue at the institute.

Topic
The managers were shocked by the extent of the impact that their previous behavior had triggered at the institute, in keeping with the saying “the solution to one problem is the basis for new problems.” In the remaining three hours of consulting, a potential solution for the consequences of the original conflict at the management level of the institute needed to be found.

Staging
a. Preparation
I suggested to the management rather intuitively and out of (time) necessity that they put the whole volatile and unstable situation at their institute on a “floating” board to see where there were the most fires that needed to be put out and how they could best approach this strategically.
My hypothesis was that it could be helpful to visualize and represent the complex and conflict-­laden situation, while at the same time making the fragility of collaboration at the institute tangible and perceptible. The most feasible way to achieve this was by using a modified SysTeam as a constella­tion tool.

b. Performance and progression
I asked the clients to first map out the current situation at the institute with figurines on the SysTeam plate (in accordance with Sparrer’s systemic organizational structure constellation method) as they curr­ently saw it – in other words, to develop a picture of the current situation that all three men could agree on. The guiding questions were: Who is allied or at odds with whom? Where do the relationships work? Where does cooperation work?
I was completely surprised at how intensively and openly the leaders applied themselves to this constellation work. It was interesting that the three of them had often taken a similar view of the current situation. The three engineers worked obsessively for almost two hours on mapping out the actual current situation.
In the process, the plate hit the floor several times, because understandably it wasn’t possible to find a balance. No surprise, given so much diss­onance! They commented vociferously on these crashes: “If you had said this back then and not done that, it wouldn’t have come to this …” and reflected: “If I had understood the effects of … back then …”
I got the impression that this constellation work also helped the three leaders relive the entire process of how the conflict had come about and to recognize what part they themselves had played in what had happened – and what lay in store for the future. And they did this without blaming each other! This was very impressive to see (cf. “current situation”).
It became apparent during this “staging” that the introduction of new software at the institute had generated considerable conflict. A serious lack of clarity in roles had existed between the CEO and his managers, and all three had not led their employees with enough clarity. All this had caused massive imbalance in the institute (reproduced on the SysTeam plate).

c. Finish
The next step was to move from the current sit­uation to a realistic “solution picture.” Creating the solution picture was difficult because it was clear that the employees were still internally in combat and conflict mode – the war was over, but communicating that would be the next challenge for the management team. I asked the leaders each time to formulate messages to their staff, such as “We had a conflict that we have now worked through and resolved,” or “It is important that we all return to working together constructively.” It was clear that they would need support (internally) throughout as a team development process. However, for reasons of time, we were only able to roughly sketch out the solution and think about the first strategic steps.

Reflection
The focus of the reflection was on getting the managers to understand how they themselves had unconsciously contributed to the conflict through what they had done or not done, and to be shocked by the effects that their conflict had had on the institute’s employees. And that it was something they could not now just shake off.
However, it also became clear how important it was that they had been able to address and overcome this conflict in a relatively short period of time with the help of external consulting, that they were able to reflect on it and reach agreement on the near fut­ure: team development programs, consulting each other more, showing greater appreciation, holding annual appraisals, addressing mistakes without fear. Last, but not least, the outgoing CEO planned a speech to all employees in which he would explain the results of this conflict resolution process and call for constructive cooperation.

Conclusion
The managers were very pleased about how the tool helped them quickly gain a good overview of the conflict in their institute, which had previously been regarded as overwhelming.
“Expect the unexpected and trust your intuition …” Visualization helps. Limitation, too. SysTeam has become very invaluable to me in my coaching work or when working through conflicts. Originally born out of necessity, the use of SysTeam as a constellation tool is now one of my most essential tools. I have since been able to use it repeatedly with great success in conflicts, (non-recognition of) boundaries and resource-related issues, partly with the involvement of “real” representatives from groups.

Transfer to the real world
The combination of systemic structural constellation and SysTeam makes it possible for problems to be quickly visualized and potential options for solutions to be weighed up directly by the clients through trial and error. It is possible to immediately become aware of unresolved (marginal) issues.
It can be used to work on issues of professional and personal overload, conflicts, structural prob­lems in organizations, health-related issues and other imbalances of all kinds. The willingness of those involved to reflect is indirectly encouraged and enhanced through working with the tool. And sometimes even the next-best balance is a good one!
The benefit of this method: quick and immediate­ly evident realization by all involved that a certain degree of equilibrium or balance is necess­ary and, above all, possible for people (not only) in organizations.