Resolving tensions between multiple parties
How do you organise a constructive confrontation when interests, power dynamics and relational wounds accumulate?
3500 € per session, excl. VAT
In short
Two days, equivalent to 14 hours excluding breaks, to design a facilitation approach tailored to a multi-party conflict and then test it through role play. Participants practise making discussions safe, managing escalation and formalising verifiable commitments, with behavioural feedback and preparation for a workplace pilot.
Why this training?
A complex conflict cannot be reduced to two incompatible opinions: operational dependencies, status and a sense of injustice sustain the deadlock. An improvised meeting can strengthen alliances and leave those whose voices are least heard exposed. Facilitation requires simultaneously maintaining the framework, managing emotions and supporting the search for options. Repeated simulations allow participants to observe their reactions, receive precise feedback and retest an intervention rather than memorise recipes. Running case study: At Avelune Conditionnement, a fictitious organisation, production, quality and sales are at odds after several shipments have been blocked. A manager imposes her decisions, a technician withdraws from meetings and accusations circulate. The group must prepare a meeting without concealing disagreements over responsibilities. Transfer to the workplace: Within thirty days, propose a pilot involving a limited dispute, with an explicit mandate and the parties’ consent. Arrange for an observer accepted by the parties, record interruptions and paraphrasing, then review commitments after two weeks. Adjust the protocol before extending its use.
Objectives of this training
- Map stakeholders, interests, dependencies and power imbalances
- Define a mandate and protective conditions for participation
- Conduct preparatory interviews without taking sides
- Interrupt escalation and rebalance opportunities to speak
- Design, test and revise a facilitation protocol
- Formalise commitments and a follow-up plan
Who is it for and what are the prerequisites?
Roles and tasks concerned
- Cross-functional managers facing tensions between departments
- Human resources professionals and managers of sensitive projects
- Internal facilitators who have already facilitated difficult discussions
Prior skills
- Have experience leading meetings involving explicit disagreements
- Practise active listening and paraphrasing
- Be willing to take part in role play and receive feedback on your behaviour
What you will work on
Understand the conflict system
Objective: Distinguish the dimensions of the deadlock. Positions, interests, alliances, history and dependencies.
Decide whether the meeting is appropriate
Objective: Set the limits of the mandate. Consent, impartiality, danger, suspected harassment and appropriate referral contacts.
Hear the parties separately
Objective: Gather concerns without promising adjudication. Open questions, confidentiality and validation of paraphrasing.
Establish a protective framework
Objective: Enable participation despite differences in status. Speaking rules, the right to withdraw and handling interruptions.
Manage escalation
Objective: Intervene without fuelling confrontation. Early warning signs, a pause, emotional acknowledgement and refocusing.
Build the prototype
Objective: Assemble a process tailored to the conflict. Stages, roles, points requiring attention and fallback options.
Test the multi-party confrontation
Objective: Maintain dialogue under pressure. Silences, coalitions and challenges to impartiality.
Explore acceptable options
Objective: Separate understanding from agreement. Incompatible needs, shared criteria and persistent disagreements.
Conclude without forcing agreement
Objective: Turn progress into realistic commitments. Responsibilities, deadlines, reservations and avenues of recourse.
Prepare a limited pilot
Objective: Revise the protocol for the workplace. Scope, supervision, observation and follow-up.
What you take away
- Conflict map and hypotheses to test
- Prototype protocol with a mandate and stopping rules
- Completed behavioural observation grid
- Pilot plan and template for verifiable commitments
Method and assessment
- Brief instructional input followed by simulations and role plays based on the case used throughout.
- Structured observation and peer feedback using a shared observation framework.
- Guided debrief: what worked, what will be adjusted, individual commitment.
- Preparation: Describe a fictitious or anonymised dispute, without any data that could identify individuals. Identify the internal reporting procedures and the resources authorised by the organisation.
Observable criteria: The mapping distinguishes between facts, interpretations and expressed interests. ; The framework makes consent, limited confidentiality and the option to stop explicit. ; The facilitator interrupts attacks without discrediting the person making them. ; Each party can correct the restatement of their concerns. ; The pilot specifies those responsible, deadlines, observations and conditions for revision..
Frequently asked questions
Do you have to disclose a personal conflict?
No, the exercises use fictitious or anonymised cases.
Does facilitation replace an investigation?
No. A report requiring protection or investigation falls under the relevant procedures.
What should you do if one party refuses?
Do not force the meeting; clarify the refusal and reassess the mandate.
Is a final agreement mandatory?
No. A clarified disagreement and an appropriate referral can constitute a responsible outcome.
Last updated: