A general remark before presenting the case: we no longer see repetitive sick leave, walkouts or strikes as was the case before. The unhappiness of employees manifests itself more in the form of work-to-rule strikes, short absences, individual or collective complaints or even less involvement in day-to-day work.

The context

The case that we present to you takes place in a regional bank-insurance network and revolves around two employees who are in conflict.

On the one hand, Floriane , a young 28-year-old account manager, has been on sick leave for 1 year and on the other, Roberta , 48, considered an insurance expert, who is a reference in this profession.

Roberta, known as Floriane, “plays the boss” and harasses Floriane; this is what is stated in the latter's annual interview, which Roberta describes as defamatory accusations.

Note that during the absence of Floriane who was replaced, the results were maintained.

A conventional breach of Floriane's contract was attempted but there was no agreement on the amount of compensation. It could therefore not be completed.

Floriane therefore returns to the company as part of a therapeutic half-time; the whole team fears the resumption of relations with Floriane.

Didier, the manager, another protagonist, asks the HRD for staff compensation to fill half the working time not done by Floriane.

The relational climate is deteriorating again and it is at this time that the HRD calls on the Cabinet LACT.

We therefore immediately measure, from the start of our intervention, a strong feeling of individual and collective concern: an increase in versatility linked to a new conception of the function of customer service representative due to the transformation of the banking network into a network of bancassurance further adds to the climate of conflict.

We are obviously interested in the two main protagonists: Floriane and Roberta, and analyze the attempted solutions that each has adopted.

Floriane is in a logic of belief ; she is convinced that we are trying to separate herself from her and relies on the law, rules and procedures for her sole benefit.

Roberta is also in a logic of belief ; she thinks of herself as the victim of betrayal (Floriane's statement in the report of her annual interview), harassment and damage to her reputation. She therefore focuses on looking for clues likely to confirm this belief, such as the fact that Floriane chooses the files she wants to deal with or leaves the company earlier than her schedule theoretically allows.

Everyone on the team tries to ease their discomfort by sharing with others. "The hierarchy does not protect, we say, it is powerless and we say to ourselves that this agency is left to fend for itself".

Floriane is perceived as threatening because she drapes herself at the slightest opportunity in the banner of her rights. It's David against Goliath not only between the two account managers but with the whole team.

This interpersonal conflict has in fact become collective.

Didier meanwhile is anxious. He joins the collective complaint and takes part in the belief explained above.

He is for his part in a logic of control.

• He designs and dictates his solutions to his collaborators in the face of anticipated or proven problems.
• He develops a sacrificial attitude to compensate for the low productivity of his collaborators; he does for them.
• The authority he embodies is weakened: he contributes to the feeling of general anxiety.
• He is unable to restore cooperation within his team. He faces a questioning of the hierarchy.

Our problem solving device

We carried out our operating diagnosis by listening to Didier and each member of the team and made a restitution of these interviews and our conclusions to the HRD.

Our targeted actions were conducted with the director himself (6 sessions) and we combined a collective and individual approach (individual interviews and 3 collective days).

The intervention strategy

Floriane, Roberta (and the team) 

We worked on the logic of belief to shake the certainty that the partner is unreliable and that there is a risk of conflict.

We also explored the emotional experience based on the "prisoner's dilemma". To create trust, you have to bet on trust. The other trusts me; what am I ready to implement. This attitude causes relational openness: act as if the other needs your help and put this into practice.

As far as Didier is concerned, we have worked to restore his authority by teaching him or relearning how to:

• Delegate: find the right agreements yourself
• Control: are these agreements the right ones? If so, I encourage them.
• Correct: this or that agreement does not work. You have to modify.

We have sought to obtain better support from employees, that they show their superiors that they need occasional operational assistance; we advised and obtained more collaborative behaviors.

The obtained results

Cooperation has been strengthened and the social climate restored A new organization of work has been put in place: proposals to directors, particularly on the question of the distribution of files Interpersonal conflict has dissolved Authority has been restored: a more great has been given to the team which contributes more to the collective work. Didier has in fact “saved” himself in terms of energy. The relationship has calmed down with each of the employees