Al, you are correct that ground rules must be set. An employee who does not have people skills should not be allowed to repeatedly take crucial issues to her coworker, that are delivered in an accusatory manner. The second time she did that should have been the last time!

The employer needs to stop “refereeing” TWO teams and become the “coach” of THE team. If both ladies are on the same team and working as team players, Ms. Animated Temperament will be presenting her crucial issues to the “coach” not her teammate. The “coach” can then research the ideas presented by Ms. Animated Temperament and when needed, make changes to how the team is doing things. As the “coach” the employer can regain control of the office.

However, I think you left a couple of unfinished gems hiding in your analysis of the first common mistake, “Don’t come out of that room until…”

A few years ago I had an experience with 2 senior managers who were frequently clashing and it was splitting the company into two camps. I decided to first meet individually with each of them to let them express their feelings, and I recorded the issues that were important to them, paraphrased in language approved by them in the meeting. This let them vent and feel heard and allowed me to manage the wording to ensure it was civil and respectful. I listened to their complaints and then looked for ways to reframe the ranting from “I don’t like…” to “What I really want is…” Then I asked, what do you like about [the other person]? Since they had just released a lot of energy, they were ready to say something nice about the other person, even compelled to say something nice. I continued to ask probing questions to help them bring to light some positive impressions they might have about the other person, even if it was very simple (such as “comes to work on time every day”).

I then set up a meeting with the two managers and the company president. The president set the stage about why it was important to resolve the conflict, why it mattered to the company, that he valued each of them personally and professionally, and that he had confidence we could work this out. I had two flip charts prepared and I lifted the first blank page on each of them. The first thing each combatant saw was the list of things the other person valued about them. One list was noticeably shorter and the author felt compelled to make his list longer by adding a few more things that he valued about the other manager. This exercise completely changed the tone in the room from angry and defensive to open and conciliatory and served to radically increase trust. I didn’t know it at the time, but it was working from the Crucial Conversation principles of “start with safety” and “mutual respect” – the unfinished gems in your 3rd paragraph.

We continued the meeting, focusing on common ground and common goals. I started with topics derived from their reframing (from “I don’t like…” to “I really want…”), then asked them clarify and/or elaborate if they wanted to. By the end of the meeting one of the managers, who was hard-working, up-through-the-ranks, blue collar, no-nonsense fellow, actually said to the other younger fellow, “I can understand how you might feel that way.” The two managers left the meeting with a stronger relationship and an agreement that they both endorsed.

I didn’t know it then, but I think the strategy worked because of the principles that Crucial Conversations has illuminated: mutual respect, safety, common ground and common purpose.

While the group is probably right about the changes they want, making that assertion or otherwise treating the person as “wrong” won’t work. What if someone could facilitate a conversation with the parties that helps them look with new eyes at each other,say, from the perspective of respect and gratitude?

Here are some questions as an example that might help change the perspective of the parties:

If they could imagine giving the person the benefit of the doubt, how would that change the conversation they are having with themselves about that person?

What common goals are more important than the one of being right?

What could each appreciate about the other person’s contribution?

If they wanted to reinforce the other person’s dignity, what would they say or do?

What are the strengths that make this pair such a great team, and how do they feel about that?

The more common ground you can build, the more easily people will focus on what matters to create success. DO you ever notice how much slack we give our best friends? While these employees may not be friends outside of work, they are treating each other as enemies in the workplace, and that is not working for anyone.

They aren’t broken, they just have different perspectives of right and wrong. Rather than hyperanalysing why that is, you can short cut it by helping them focus on what they want – winning at work.

If they could change themselves to become a better workmate, what would they be willing to consider?

Just some questions – you can probably come up with better ones of your own that would fit your situation. The idea is – what you say, you are. So what do you want to say?