Excerpt from a LACT workshop

There are three of them:
1- A conflict is more than a conflict between people
2- Let us privilege individual and collective resources
3- The company is a world of paradoxes

Our first bias: always look at situations – a problem, an objective – as a whole, avoiding the search for a culprit.

A conflict is always more than a conflict of people, whether it is with oneself, whether it is with one's work activity or whether it is obviously with another person. To situate a problem in its entirety, we implement an interactional and strategic operational diagnosis, i.e. we will meet all the people involved, mobilized and concerned by a problem, precisely to have this global vision of the situation and make a diagnosis.

This is how it is possible for us, in certain situations at the end of the diagnosis, to be working at the same time with a manager on one side and a team on the other, especially in situations where the manager is either strongly questioned, or very anxious to regain authority over his team. In this type of situation, the team presents at the same time components where the complaints are quite numerous and very often behind these complaints there is also a request for authority often more marked, underlying the problem encountered by the 'crew.

Our second bias: we favor individual and collective resources

Using our concept of attempted solution, as Olivier showed you earlier through the case, what interests us is that the resources possessed by people, by teams, by the company with which we work, are mobilized correctly. Thus, through the concept of attempted solution, we see what can happen at a given moment: these resources either become rigid because they are not necessarily mobilized wisely or not at the right time or because they are solicited too much and that, in doing so, we are not relying on other resources that would help us maintain agility and flexibility.

In our PSR prevention systems in particular, we offer discovery awareness modules and training interventions that allow us to work on the resources present in the work activities and among the people with whom we work. This also makes it possible to identify with them the moments when they see the limits of their resources. For us, it is when people begin to reach the limits of their resources that the problems - of burn-out, exhaustion, failure, relational tensions - appear and become encysted. So we make sure to prioritize the resources to reach these limits, and to push them back precisely and ensure that they avoid becoming encysted.

Our third bias: the company is a world of paradox that should be approached with rigor and method.

Business is a world of paradox. Human beings, in general, know how to handle paradoxes. Obviously, we have objectives that can become antagonistic at times, either with ourselves, or because we are caught in a conflict of values, in antagonisms with others or with more collective objectives, there are plenty of occasions where we find ourselves in certain paradoxes, certain antagonisms. And to address such situations of paradoxes, rational logics will generally not be very effective. Indeed, one cannot resolve a true paradox. We can bypass it. We can crop it. To do this, we approach these paradoxes with rigor and method in order to manage the relational and emotional aspects of the problems that may be encountered. For this, we therefore set up problem solving interventions, with a specific grid that allows us to precisely address all these aspects with rigor and method.