Thank you very much for this insightful episode, which has kept me busy for some time afterwards. Above all, I wondered why conflict management systems are not welcomed with open arms at management level when their effectiveness has been proven and their application contributes to a considerable increase in effectiveness (perhaps you can link the study – I mean from PwC? – you can link to it?).

From my experience, I can report that conflict resolution, e.g. through mediation, is often shunted down to the „lower“ levels. People are also happy to send someone for coaching whose „impossible“ behaviour „is to be coached“ away, which on closer inspection turns out to be a helpless reaction to a demonstration of power by their manager.

In upper management circles, my perception is that it is often no longer the person with the better arguments who wins, but the one who presents them most eloquently (or loudest). Characteristics such as eloquence, charisma, a certain ruthlessness and also the desire to apportion blame have helped people to rise to this level, while empathy, a change of perspective and acting at eye level – characteristics that are conducive to a good conflict culture – are likely to have been more of a hindrance. At least at middle management level, I often encounter personalities with these qualities and, as a result, a high level of conflict competence.

It is therefore understandable to me that conflict management systems tend to be rejected by top management, because they would contribute to people having to question themselves and admit their own mistakes, perhaps showing personal weaknesses and in the end even contributing to the conflict with their behaviour (irony) instead of being able to pass it on to others, which would (perceivedly) weaken their own position.

Perhaps I am implying too strongly egotistically motivated motives here. However, I wanted to contribute this aspect because the topic of „the psychology of management“ has been on my mind for almost 20 years.