Expectations in any relationship - whether in private or professional situations - are often the source of conflict. The following procedure prevents such conflicts and provides a remedy if tensions have already arisen due to role ambiguities.

 

Effect:

  • Clarification of role expectations 
  • Resolving minor and moderate conflicts
  • Identifying "false" expectations
  • Taking responsibility for all

 

Contraindication:

When conflicts escalate and mistrust is high, the participants perceive the method as running the gauntlet.

 

Procedure: 

Preparation

All roles in the company serve one goal. The target is what gives the expectation market its meaningful orientation. It is worth defining the goal carefully. The goal should be as external as possible and as internal as necessary. Examples:

  • To inspire customer xy with our service… (External)
  • So that we can focus on our customers, … (half-and-half)
  • So that we can enjoy working together again, … (Internal)

 

Realisation

The start serves to establish a target focus and a secure framework. The goal is named (be sure to specify the "why") and discussed. This is followed by the development of the rules of the game with the following question: What absolutely must happen today, what must not happen under any circumstances so that we can work towards the defined goal in a targeted manner? The answers are noted down and discussed as rules of the game. Helpful rules of the game:

  • Everyone is responsible for what they say - and don't say
  • No justification
  • 10% past, 90% future

 

Preparing the posters can be organised as a ritual: Each person describes "their" flipchart with their name, goal and the three questions. The posters are then left lying around and the participants take turns until they have filled all the posters. Depending on the group, the beat will change automatically, or you will need moderation cues to change. "When you're done, stand up and walk by the person on your left. Those who are still writing should not be disturbed by this."  

 

After the castling, all participants come to their now filled poster. You read through it and ask clarifying questions. The participants often start to justify themselves here (--> rules of the game). 

 

Now the commitments are moderated: "Think about one or at most two topics that you would like to work on. But only if you see the point and are fully behind it. You don't have to have a solution yet. You can also "build" a combined / own theme from the feedback. This is where participants often start to justify themselves or come to terms with the past (-->rules of the game). They often want to make it too perfect, in which case process support helps:

 

The charm of this method lies in its iterative nature. Much more important than doing everything right the first time is to get moving and prove to yourself and the world that you can change your commitments in such a way that your colleagues feel it and you maintain your own convictions! Sometimes it takes two or three rounds - but this is how you systematically arrive at sustainable solutions that are viable.  

 

It concludes with the announcement that the commitments will be reviewed in a timely and low-threshold manner. This can often happen without external moderation. Sometimes, however, it helps to organise an externally moderated workshop in a few months' time, as a kind of "net" to capture those topics that turn out not to be discussable purely internally. This takes the pressure off, because difficult topics can simply be "parked" during internal discussions --> We then look at them together with external support.

 

Short-term review

What is important is not what is said, but what happens. Therefore, the method only becomes effective when the commitments are reviewed. This can and should take place within existing forums (management meeting, team meeting).

 

The basic principle that everyone is responsible for formulating their own commitments remains (people only change from within). Of course, something like peer pressure can and should also arise if the team assesses developments differently to the person responsible. Peer pressure often helps best if you don't make a big issue of it, but simply let it work - the next review is coming soon.

 

The inspection itself follows this basic procedure:

  1. What are the original reasons and objectives behind the commitment (--> What for)
  2. What concrete steps were taken to work on the pledge (action)
  3. What is the result achieved (outcome)
     --> Feedback from colleagues may be requested on each point. Here, however, it is imperative to obtain the external image. It is not "I" who decide whether I have achieved it, but the others.
  4. What conclusions can be drawn from this? (Done, change commitment, new attempt, etc…)

You might also be interested in this:

Sources:

Heer, Stefan (2022)

Glasl, Friedrich (2020). Conflict management