We communicate with our bodies, we communicate with our voice, we communicate even not being at a place at all (see: butterfly effect). It’s our stories, that we tell, when we meet other people, when we motivate other people. Our stories will be told over and over again and will gain impact.

Communication is everything.

But what is communication. Many people know the 93% rule, which says, that a message is send via non-verbal communication for 93%. Many coaches, mentors, trainers etc. cite and present it, when holding communication trainings. Even one of my first communication trainers in adult life believed this is true. Well, as often with scientific work, especially in laboratory setting, it does happen in very specific circumstances.In the case of the 93% rule, where 7% of the message is send via verbal communication, 55% via body language and 38% via tone of voice, both experiments where conducted under the premise, that the verbal and non-verbal signs are not congruent.

This means, that a verbal message is being sent out, while the non-verbal message sends an opposing message. Then the verbal message is “questioned” by the receiver (well, yes! If you say “yes, i want to buy this car”, while crying and avoiding to hand over the money, one might think, that there is something suspicious about your willingness to buy the car. True!)

Furthermore, only 2 experiments where conducted on the issue. Within the scientific world “facts” are accepted as facts, after multiple replication of the results under similar circumstances are registered.

The experiments conducted by A. Mehrabian are not accurately applicable to real world communication situations and are not applicable to situations, in which verbal and non-verbal channels send out congruent messages.Still, it is very important, to understand, that we as humans do have a big eco system of communication channels, such as our facial expressions, our body movement, our gestures, our voice and our spoken words. Often, we should try to get them aligned, in order to communicate a powerful mesage.

In order to communicate a congruent message and increase speaking and argumentation effectiveness, there are certain ways and methods. Methods are tought in practical trainings. Often it is forgotten, to teach the basics. Basics in general allow to spontaniously change plans, even if the learned practical method does not support it initially- The following information will therefore focus on basic knowledge. Basic knowledge should fullfil the 80:20 rule and help in making a big step in development.

In the following, some basic concepts will be presented, which should help to adjust and improve communication in everyday life.

3.1.1. The communication square by Schulz von Thun

A basic system showing on which level we communicate is the communication square by Schulz von Thun. He describes 4 levels, on which we communicate and send out messages.

* The factual level: What topic i am talking about, which reasons do i have, which examples do i show?

* The appeal level: What is my goal within my relationship with the other person, what am i expecting, what are my wishes?

* The relationsship level: How do i perceive the other person, how do i create a positive atmosphere, how is our relationship?

* The self declaration level: What i am showing about myself, how do i perceive the situation, which feelings do i have, which needs do i have?

The receiver of the communication does use the same levels of communication, when receiving messages.

This modell helps in understandning what and when you are communicating. It should help to have an insight on communication not just being spoken words.

3.1.2. The communications-Modell by Prakke

Within the communicationsmodell by Prakke communication is understood as a two way street.  Sender and receiver are exchanging information and switching roles the whole time. Both use a specific signs in order to send messages. The sign system might overlap or might not overlap. When the system overlaps, communication is easer. When it does not, communication becomes more difficult.

Both use specific channels for communication. In best case both use the same channel, so that communication is send and received properly. Communication might have different quality. There is the case of information exchange, which is more factual. Then there is the case of commenting information, which is more a subjective evaluation. Then there is a simple conversation, which includes all elements.

This modell helps in understanding, that there is always a receiver and simultaniously a sender on the other side. A good method to better understand the receiver is dissociation in a psychological sense. It means, that one detaches him- or herself from the self experience and is then able to connect with the experience of somebody else, virtually.

3.2.1. Top to bottom or the flight height

One of my supervisors always tells me to argue on the highest possible level. What he means, is that the higher a plane is flying, the smaller the world underneath it is and the less details are visible. So what you do is, that you start at the highest possible level, describing a picture with the least possible details.

With each line of argumentation, the flight height decreases and makes more details visible. After reaching the lowest flight height for one argument, one should jump back to the highest point of view, in order to start the next argument.

* Highest level: I see the whole landscape including trees, bushes, a house

* Mid Level: I see the whole house and some of the trees. The house seems to have windows

* Low Level: i see a part of the house. I know, that there are 4 windows. I do see 4 trees.

3.2.2. Build logical chains

This rule is very simple and lets the mind of the listener follow, what is being actually said. It can be described as a mathematical rule.

If A equals B and If B equals C, then A equals C. So what you should do: Don’t start with describing the connection between A and C, but start with AtoB and BtoC, because the connection between A and C will then become self evident.

By building such logical chains, people will be able to follow your argumentation and understand your premisses as well.

Well, do you remember the house of card scene, where Frank Underwood pushed a women under a train? If this scene was shown directly within the first episode, nobody would have understood. First they build up the whole storyline, in order to place the push as an integral part of the development or even the climax of the story.

3.2.3. The cooperative principles (of communication) by Grice

The cooperative principles by Paul Grice, have the goal to communicate more effectively. The principles are the following:

* Maxim of quality: Tell the truth and do not tell things, that under your best knowledge, are false.

* Maxim of quantity: Tell as much as necessary, while telling as little as possible.

* Maxim of relevance: Tell relevant information to the cause. which is pursued by you and your counterpart

* Maxim of manner: Talk precisely and avoid ambiguity.

3.2.4. The FDH-Rule

A general rule, which should especially help in opening conversations, is the FDH Rule, with F being friendly, D being direct and H being hard. It tells a person to be friendly in tone and tough on the matter. When it comes to a timing, then first start with the friendly part, before beginning with the specific toughness on the matter.

One can use a specific scheme for building sentences, in order to introduce the FDH rule into speaking habits:

First be kind and repeat the argument of the opposite site, evaluating it as a very good idea. Then continue by “furthermore”, placing your own argument on top of the previous one.

Such a sentence might sound like: “Well, your idea is a very good approach to solve our issue and furthermore i would suggest to…..”

3.2.4. Positive formulation by Shazer

This might sound like an old rule and might be one of those rules, which trigger the “yeah, i already know this” reaction. But when training positive formulation, it will become obvious pretty soon, that it is not as easy as it seems.

The idea of formulating stuff in a positive way impacts the cognitive thought proccesses, as one has to think first about solutions, that are possible and not about the impossible. Thinking of solutions is a much harder task, than denying something.

Some examples:

* Negative: We are closed from 3pm -> Positive: We are opened until 3pm.

* Negative: We can’t do such a project -> Positive: What we can do in such a case, is…

* Negative: This is impossible -> Positive: What i can offer you, is…

3.2.4. The “boiled frog” or “planted seed” idea

Well, this might not be the most ethical metaphor for an communication mechanism, but the boiled frog is a very simple, but at the same time very powerful mechanism. What happens if a frog is put directly into boiled water?

Well, the frog will jump out and jump away. No frog to eat, today. What is the solution? Well, put the frog into cold water and then slowly boil it up. It will lead to the frog feeling secure and warm. The frog will stay until he’s boiled.

What does this mean for communication? Don’t put all the hard truth on the table immediately. Build up the argument step by step, even by dividing the communication into different moments in time.

One of my colleagues says, that you should plant the seed, take care for it and then harvest the gain. The idea of planting a seed is pretty similar, as it does not put all the information on the table at once. It does assume, that effects have to grow over time and it does assume, that you can’t harvest something if it has not grown before.

3.3.1. How to feedback

Feedbacking might be a real art, as it is not just telling the truth. Feedbacking is not an end in itself. It should aim at helping to improve the receiver of the feedback. This is why just telling somebody, that the way to solve something is wrong, is wrong. There are many possible issues with just telling somebody, that he or she is doing something wrong. What if the sender’s evaluation is wrong, objectively? What if the sender does not have all the necessary information to evaluate the receivers choices accurately? What if the sender’s evaluation is just subjectively right? What if it is unclear, what a good way to go for the receiver is? What if the receiver is not in the best mood for receiving feedback?

Well, there are many “if”s, which should be considered. A simple rule might help in communicating feedback in a way, that will avoid the “if” questions. A well constructed feedback should look approximately like the following scheme

* Objective description of the situation: Do only speak about facts. Example: “3 days ago, i have send you an email. My inbox did not show any answer until now”

* Subjetive perception of the situation: Do speak about what you think happened: “Well i have the feeling, that you have not answered, yet. But i am not completely sure.”

* Subjective evaluation of the situation: Do speak about, how you feel about what happened: “For me it is very dissapointing, given the case, that i have not received an answer, yet. It is dissapointing, because i need this information to proceed with the project”

* Communication of target state: Do formulate a state, which would be acceptable for all parties: “Within our common project, we need daily feedback loops in order to not hold on project progress. No matter who is responsible for the next step, the whole team should take care of progress”

* Proposition of next steps: Do formulate a next step, which includes all parties: “Maybe we can exchange information daily for 5 minutes, so that we both do not miss on next steps. This would eliminate the “whom to blame question” from such a situation”

3.3.2. Basics in verbal communication

Some communication skills might help in better understanding of the person on the other side and therefore leading a senseful conversation.

* Asking open questions: Open questions are questions, which allow the other party to evaluate in whatever direction he or she thinks is right. Closed questions in general generate defensive answers and Yes/No answers. Open question: “Where do you want to go?” Vs. Closed question “Should we go to the cinema or to the restaurant?”

* Paraphrasing: Is rephrasing, what the opponent as said in own words. Often it is used to shorten long claims and provide a feeling of understanding.

* Clarifying: Clarification is used in order to confirm rightful understanding and not build the following conversation on false premisses.

* Summarizing: Summarizing is used in order to get acceptance after one topic is discussed and cooperation is reached, in order to proceed with the next topic.

* Mirroring of emotionality and affectivity: Mirroring is used to build trust and rapport. It means re-act the body and facial gestures and expressions of the other party.

* Emphasizing on opinions not judgements: Emphasizing on the fact, that ones evaluation is not a given fact, but an opinion

* Inform all parties about assumptions and goals upfront: Sometimes not showing all cards is less valuable. Within a cooperation scenario showing his cards might help in achieving the common goal, as it will avoid conflicts due to misunderstandings.

* Understand underlying assumptions: This point is very important in negotiations, private and professional. It means, that one should not argue the facts on the table, but the underlying assumptions. Sometimes understanding the underlying assumptions, makes the facts understandable.

* Understand triggering situations: Different people have different learned triggers, which make them become emotional and aggressive. It is good to find out the moments, which trigger the opposite site in order to avoid unnecessary problems

* Less defending oneself: This is a point i like very much. When defending yourself, it means that one is in defense position, accepting short term superiority of the opposite site or the argument of the opposite site.

* Understand your own goals upfront: When understanding own goals upfront, it will lead to clearer communication towards to opposite site, which will increase understandning

* Find a better way or place for cooperatoin: Sometimes places trigger people. Sometime a new place or the use of other words lead to better results, true to the motto: “Don’t expect other results, if you don’t change your behavior”

* Active listening: Active listening is observing and listening to the counterpart, re-asking, at moments which seem to be important.

* Asking questions in general: if you expect an answer, then ask a question. Ask the question in such a way, that the counterpart knows, that this is the focus of the conversation. Do not expect people to answer (honestly) on statements without questions.

There are simple suggestions, whch should help in improving the outcome of interactions with others. At work one should always remember, that certain methods or skills, should be used wisely, depending on context. But rules are there to first cover the average, after taking a look at the extremes and exceptions. A coach can assist within the developmental process, can help in building basics by suggesting the right methods for the specific reality.

For example, the appeal and relationship level within Shulz von Thun’s systematic approach, allowed myself to better understand, why the communication with one of my clients (as a consultant in digital marketing) was not properly functioning. It helped me, to see, what i am communicating to him, besides my spoken words.

Working with flight heights helped me to build better presentations and always stick to the main storyline, even if i moved away telling private sub-stories.

Working with logical chains helped me in writing more sturctured emails and getting better responses. Today, i always begin an email with a question, if i expect an answer. Afterwards i provide all the necessary information, to answer an email.

The Feedback scheme, helped me to understand, that my perception is my perception and not a given fact. This then helped me to not sound so aggressive, when having feedback to tell.

Well, the best rule for my private life, is the boiled frog rule. What i do today with pretty much each relationsship, when it comes to difficult news. I introduce some light versions of the truth to the person upfront, some days or even weeks upfront.

I am trying to always suggest, that my judgement is my opinion, to not take away the space of the other person to promote his/her judgement on a market-place of ideas. This helps me to not get into confrontation.

Leadership is an important topic for research within fields such as economics and psychology. Research concentrates on leadership styles, leadership impacts and the attributes a leader should have within the process of leading.

As a first overview the following chapters will describe the difference between leadership and management (1.2.), leadership styles by Hersey & Blanchard (1.3.), managerial grid by Blake & Mouton (1.4.) and the attributes of transformative leadership (1.5.). All of these approaches concentrate on a leader, on a single person, who is or is not impacting own and others outcomes.

Though in some leadership types the leader is asking his/her followers for opinion, in most cases he/she is the center of decision making. There is another approach, which is called Shared Leadership.

A brief description of shared leadership will be conducted, too (1.6.)

A leader is a person who influences behavior of another person or a group. Leadership is therefore the framework, within which an individual or a group is influenced by a leader aiming at achievement of specific goals. Compared to a  manager, who is doing things in the right way, a leader is doing the right things (Bennis, Nanus).

A manager is focusing on the realization of plans and following rules of others, while a leader has his own vision of the future. A manager seeks to conserve existing structures and order, while a leader is assisting adaptive changes.

Within this concept leadership is seen as depended from the situation. The leader should adapt his/her leadership style dynamically to the situation.

Situation is defined as the level of maturity of the leader.  The maturity level depends on both, the employees motivation and the employees competence. Both can be either high or low.

Depending on the situative combination the leader could or even should choose from a list of 4 leadership styles:

* Leader: Directive Style -> Employee (High motivation, low competence)

* Leader: Coaching Style -> Employee (Low motivation, low competence)

* Leader: Participation Style -> Employee (Low motivation, high competence)

* Leader: Delegating Style -> Employee (High motivation, high competence)

Now the question is, what these 4 styles mean when it comes to a leaders behavior:

* Directive Style (high task orientation, low relationship orientation): Leader  defines roles, sets rules, makes decisions, has an overview over the progress, communication in one direction

* Coaching Style (high task orientation, high relationship orientation):  Leader defines roles, listens to employee suggestions, makes decisions

* Participation Style (low task orientation, high relationship orientation): Leaders delegate daily business decisions to employees. Leaders simplify situations and take part in decision making process.

* Delegating Style (low task orientation, low relationship orientation): Leaders take part in decision making, but participation in decision making process is dependend on employees decision. Employee is evaluting for success.

The managerial grid by Blake & Mouton differentiates between task orientation and peoples orientation, too. The managerial grid differentiates 5 leadership styles:

* Style 1,1 – Indifferent style (low people orientation, low task orientatoin): Minimalizing efforts, efforts only in order to maintain position in company

* Style 1,9 – Accomodating style (high people orientation, low task orientation): Leader is seeking to build harmony among employees, which should help in building performance (but is not always)

* Style 9,1 – Authoritarian style (low people orientation, high task orientation): Leader is forcing obedience and concentrates on providing a framework for employees to fulfill their task properly.

* Style 5,5 – Behavioral style (average people orientatoin, average task orientation): Leadership is balanced. Both objective goals and subjective needs are considered. Bot might not be met at a high percentage.

* Style 9,9 – Team style (high people orientation, high task orientation): Leaders seek growing teamwork, engagement and motivation among workers. Should help in the belief, that workers are pursueing a common goal, that they need to cooperate and that they are an important part of the company.

Transformational leadership means, that a leader is leading with the help of a vision and inspiring others, while developing together with the members of the group. The transformational leadership has its focus on changing the future, based on the vision. Typical attributes are:

* Increasing intrinsic motivation of employees by involvement

* Increasing ethical culture and decision making

* Concentration on higher goals and common goods

* Persuasion based on rational argumentation

* Coaching and mentoring as types of leadership

Transactional leadership on the other hand focusses on supervision, organization and performance. It uses rewards and punishment as mechanisms. The transactional leadership has its focus on maintaining the present. Subsets of the transactional leadership are Management by objetcives (MBO) and Management by exception (MBE)

Shared leadership can be seen through different lenses.

Aggregation approach: Leadership is going over from an individual to an unknown group of individuals.  There is no exact definition on who exactly should be the leader in which situation. It is characterized by a commonly conducted leadership behavior by the whole group and its individual members.

Social network approach: Leadership is the connection between 2 individuals within a group, while the connection is one of many connections within a web of connections. Connections can be identified on a 0-1 scale, as 0=leader and 1= follower. This means, that within one connection, one individual A is the leader, while the other one B is the follower. Individual A might be a follower within another connection. It is characterized by the distribution of leadership influence across multiple individuals according to their connections.

Distribution: Centralization approach: It is charaterized by a set of responsibilities and rights which is centrally available, is not directly connected to any team member and is distributed depending on the situation. The individual with the most connections/abilities when it comes to the centrality, has the most powerful role within a team.

In general traditional approaches focus on the leadership style of an individual, who is in charge. In most cases the factor which differentiated the style was the focus on people and the focus on tasks. As an additional factor style was differentiated by degree of participation of employees in decision making, while a one person was still the formally appointed leader.

Now the question is whether a distribution of leadership on multiple individuals by any method will increase leadership and group outcomes. Another question might be, whether ineffective leadership might be improved by shared leadership.

The following results are taken from a scientific meta-analysis by Lauren D’Innocenzo, John E.Mathieu & Michael R. Kukenberger.

In a meta analysis the authors have found, that shared leadership is positively related to team performance.

Furthermore it was found, that the more a definition of shared leadership accounted for complexities, the higher the impact was. Especially two concepts have shown increased impact. Both, the central network approach and the centralization approach have shown a higher impact on team performance compared to the aggregation approach of shared leadership.

Authors have found, besides the upper findings, that team task complexity decreased the strengh of relationship between shared leadership and team performance

Which circumstances indicate, that adapting to shared leadership is a good idea?

* Unbalanced leadership: If there is an unbalanced leadership situation

* Not being a leader is valuable: If a company wants to show, that not being a formal leader does not restrict advancement, development and success.

* Future leadership: If the goal is to develop future leaders

* Responsibility: If teaching responsibility is one of the main goals of the company.

The following prerequisites should be considered, when planning adaptation to the shared leadership approach

* Mindset: Change in mindset of top management down to lower management (Top Down approach)

* Responsibilities: Restructure the decision-framework about task responsibility (from hierarchies to abilities)

* Coaching: External Coaching for current leaders (Less leadership is not a downgrade). Read more about Executive Coaching.

* Coaching: External Coaching for current followers (More leadership comes with greater responsibility). Read more about business Coaching.

* Decision making: Change in decision making processes (More transparency, an open forum, encouragement of speaking out loud)

When implementing an approach of shared leadership, the following effects might come to reality:

* Performance: Individual and team performance will increase

* Acceptance of leadership: Understanding for the complexity of leadership decisions will increase throughout the whole team

* Increased adaptivity: Diversification of leadership styles due to higher involvement of different personalities and therefore better situative adaptation

* Increased innovation: Increase of innovation due to higher involvement of the whole group

* Increased motivation and engagement: Positive effects on motivation and engagement due involvement into transparent decision making processes

* Participation: Higher perceived participation in company success

Everybody knows situations, where conflicts arise. Conflicts mights arise at work, at home or event with random strangers on the street.

At work such situations include team members not wanting to take over responsibilities of other colleagues and arguying about who’s turn it is. Often in meetings people start arguying with each other, because their own solution scenarios contradict the goals of other team members.

At home conflicts arise, when decisions are being made about furnitures, about sunday afternoons, about a family weekends, about future plans etc.

On the streets, people get into conflicts, e.g. when speaking to loud via mobile phones, making other people feel uncomfortable.

Cooperation or negatotiation sometimes seem to be out of reach.

Let’s take a more abstract view at what conflicts mean?

What do those examplary scenarios have in common? It appears, that people, who are convinced, that their pursued goal will stay unachieved due to the actions of other people, get into conflicts.

Why are situations escalting:

* Differing perception of facts by involved parties:

* Strong emotionial states

* Pursue of self-defense

* Basic error of attribution

* Conflict personality types

* Communication barriers

* Limiting ressources

What are the different types of conflicts?

* Zero-sum conlficts: The positive outcome of the winning side is equal to the negative outcome of the losing side.

* Mixed-motive conflics: both parties can benefit from co-acting, but one party can get more if it gets into competition.

The important question is not, what kind of definition should be used in order to describe conflicts. The more important question focuses on how to achieve satisfying results, while already being in conflicting situations. Of course, one approach might be conflict avoidance, but in my estimation, this is not an overall benefitting approach to life in general in the long-run. Don’t get me wrong, sometimes, in certain circumstances, conflict avoidance might be a good strategy. But in general, group and individual outcomes should increase based on effective conflict management aimed at cooperation.

What are our general directions of action in conflict situation?

* Competition: We seek competeting, when we have a high own interest and a low concern for the partner’s interest

* Cooperation: We seek support (cooperation), when we have a high own interest and a high concern for the partner’s interest

* Adaptation: We seek adaptation, when we have a low own interest and a high concern for the partner’s interest

* Avoidance: We seek avoidance, when we have a low own interest and a low concern for the partner’s interest.

* Compromise: We seek compromises, when both, own interest and cocern for others is on an average level.

In the following, several general tactics on how to react in conflict situations are described.

3.1.1. When to start negotiations?

Negotiation is the mechanism to use, when involved parties want to conclude an agreement. Involved parties do recognize the conflict and the potential agreement. All parties have the necessary decision making competencies and have prepared for conducting the negotiations.

3.1.2. What styles to use in negotiations?

* Cooperation: parties act like friends. The major goal is a settlement, while treating each other gently and trusting each other. Parties can easily change their views. The end-solution is approved by the other side.

* Rivarly (hard): participants of the negotiation are opponents. The major goal is victory. Participants are hard against the other side and do not trust each others. They use threats and hide bottom boundaries, in order to achieve a good solution for themselves.

* Materialism: participants solve the problems together, pursuing reasonable results. People seperate themselves from the problem and are independent from trusting each other. They try to focus solely on the task, avoiding unnecessary conflicts.

3.1.3. Cooperation – the robbers cave experiment

The robbers cave experiment has shown two very simple tactics in order to achieve cooperation. Within the experiment, 2 initially well intentioned groups, where then developed into rival groups and incited against each other. Afterwards both groups were given the same goal to approach. It was important to have a common goal. The other crucial aspect were shared ressources. In order to solve the common issue or achieve the common goal, both parties had to cooperate, because they shared mandatory and unique ressources. The formerly rival groups started cooperating after a certain amount of time, because goal achievement was only possible together.

The robbers cave experiment puts emphasis on two aspects:

* Common goal: Formulate or create a common goal

* Shared ressources: Focus on common and shared ressources

3.1.4. Cooperation – Improve communication skills

Some communication skills might help in being less aggressive and in developing more understanding for the other party:

* Asking open questions: Open questions are questions, which allow the other party to evaluate in whatever direction he or she thinks is right. Closed questions in general generate defensive answers and Yes/No answers.

* Paraphrasing: Is rephrasing, what the opponent has said in own words. Often it is used to shorten long claims and provide a feeling of understanding.

* Clarifying: Clarification is used in order to confirm rightful understanding

* Summarizing: Summarizing is used in order to get acceptance after one topic is discussed and cooperation is reached, in order to proceed with the next topic.

* Mirroring of emotionality and affectivity: Mirroring is used to build trust and rapport. It means re-act the body and facial gestures and expressions of the other party.

* Emphasizing on opinions not judgements: Emphasizing on the fact, that ones evaluation is not a given fact, but an opinion

* Inform all parties about assumptions and goals upfront: Sometimes not showing all cards is less valuable. Within a cooperation scenario showing his cards might help in achieving the common goal, as it will avoid conflicts due to misunderstandings.

* Understand underlying assumptions: This point is very important in negotiations, private and professional. It means, that one should not argue the facts on the table, but the underlying assumptions. Sometimes understanding the underlying assumptions, makes the facts understandable.

* Understand triggering situations: Different people have different learned triggers, which make them become emotional and aggressive. It is good to find out the moments, which trigger the opposite site in order to avoid unnecessary problems

* Less defending oneself: This is a point i like very much. When defending yourself, it means that one is in defense position, accepting short term superiority of the opposite site or the argument of the opposite site.

* Understand your own goals upfront: When understanding own goals upfront, it will lead to clearer communication towards to opposite site, which will increase understandning

* Find a better way or place for cooperatoin: Sometimes places trigger people. Sometime a new place or the use of other words lead to better results, true to the motto: “Don’t expect other results, if you don’t change your behavior”

3.1.4. Cooperation – Social cooperative solutions

Within cooperation, there are some tactics, which are more socially driven. Some of them are listed below:

* Exchanges of concessions on matters, to which the other party is concerned: Would be the most difficult task, as the important concerns are in general shared by all conflicting parties

* Finding bridging options: finding a bridging option, means that there might be solutions, which were not considered before. but might increase the cooperation level, while not giving up major goals.

* Non-specific compensation: e.g. rewarding the other site with a concession from outside the conlfict area

* Expanding the pool of ressources: by expanding the pool of ressources, the initial ressources from within the conflict area might seem less important than before.

Is a process, which is structured under guidance of a neutral party. The neutral party supports in solution finding within the conflict situation. The neutral party is educated in professional conflict solving, by using communication and negotiation techniques.

Arbitration means, that there is a binding verdict by a party outside of court. The neutral party is trying to settle all the involved conflicting parties needs. Often there is a unsalaried person.

Is similar to the process of arbitration. There is a neutral person, who talks to the conflicting parties seperately and then together. The goal of this different communication strategies is to lower the conflict potentials and improve interpersonal communication.

There are many tactics in order to foster cooperation. One can improve communication skills or generate a setup, which consists of a common goal and shared ressources. Another possibility is to make concessions in areas, which are not conflict specific or to involve more ressources, which can be used in conflict solving. When a point of no return is reached, then there are possibilities to include third party negotiators, who might take part as neutral kind of referrees.

4.2.1. From a psychological standpoint

* Do not create stresful situations, by acting stresful: Be calm, listen and react. Don’t overreact, don’t create to much buzz around the problem.

* Do not communicate via personal attacks: don’t judge the person, don’t judge the person’s attributes, judge the argument

* Do not use of threats: don’t use threats in order to achieve your own goals

4.2.2. From a negotiation standpoint

* Do not neglect the negotiation upfront: do not get into a discussion, neglecting the potential cooperation. At least try to be as open as possible

* Do not polarize opinions: this means, that you should not drift into extremes, escalating opinions. Stay within a rational and moderate frame.