Managing Conflict Through Influence Training Course

Participants can assess power dynamics and select ethical influence approaches for contested situations.

• French and Raven power bases assessed for ethical influence choices
• Formal authority, expertise, networks and resources mapped before intervention
• Power imbalances diagnosed without confusing assertiveness with aggression or coercion
• Stakeholder salience assessed through power, legitimacy and urgency criteria
• Political risks identified when sponsorship, alliances and informal norms conflict
• Ethical boundaries applied to confidentiality, consent, fairness and organisational policy

Participants can recognise their conflict triggers and choose deliberate responses during tense interactions.

• Trigger mapping links interpretations, emotions, impulses and observable responses
• ABC model separates activating events, beliefs and consequences during conflict
• Emotional regulation uses pause techniques, labelling and deliberate response selection
• Ladder of Inference tests assumptions before challenging another person’s intent
• Non-defensive language replaces blame, absolutes and unsupported attribution
• Personal conflict-style profile translated into behavioural adjustment priorities

Participants can structure direct, respectful conversations about difficult issues and required changes.

• Active listening uses paraphrase, summarising, silence and calibrated questions
• SBI feedback frames situation, behaviour and impact without character judgements
• DESC scripts structure assertive requests, consequences and agreed next steps
• Nonviolent Communication distinguishes observations, feelings, needs and requests
• Reframing converts accusations into discussable interests, standards and choices
• Conversation contracts establish purpose, boundaries, confidentiality and decision authority

Participants can build credible influence strategies for stakeholders they do not directly manage.

• Cialdini’s influence principles applied without pressure, deception or quid pro quo
• Reciprocity, consistency and social proof distinguished from manipulation
• Influence currencies identify valued resources, recognition, access and support
• Message framing connects proposals to stakeholder interests and risk concerns
• Evidence, stories and procedural fairness combined for credible persuasion
• Resistance responses classify questions, objections, fears and competing priorities

Participants can prepare and conduct negotiations that protect relationships while securing clear commitments.

• BATNA, reservation point and target defined before settlement discussions
• ZOPA assessed using interests, constraints, alternatives and decision thresholds
• Principled negotiation separates people, interests, options and objective criteria
• Package proposals trade across priorities rather than splitting differences
• Concessions sequenced conditionally to protect value and signal reciprocity
• Written agreements specify owners, milestones, review points and escalation routes

Participants can reduce threat, maintain boundaries and select appropriate intervention routes during escalation.

• De-escalation language lowers threat while preserving boundaries and accountability
• SCARF threats assessed across status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness
• Anger, silence and defensiveness handled through acknowledgement and focused questions
• High-conflict behaviours managed with limits, documentation and neutral process
• Psychological safety restored after public disagreement, error or relationship rupture
• Third-party intervention choices distinguish coaching, mediation and formal escalation

Participants can facilitate group discussions that surface disagreement and produce accountable decisions.

• Meeting design separates information sharing, problem solving and decision making
• Ground rules address airtime, interruption, evidence, dissent and confidentiality
• Facilitation techniques surface minority views before premature consensus forms
• RACI clarifies accountable decisions when cross-functional priorities collide
• Interest-based agendas sequence shared facts, options, criteria and commitments
• Remote conflict signals addressed through channel choice and response norms

Participants can build support networks and seek sponsorship for difficult decisions or change initiatives.

• Stakeholder maps identify supporters, blockers, fence-sitters and potential brokers
• Influence strategy prioritises relationship building before contested decisions
• Coalition plans align shared interests, roles, messages and mutual commitments
• Sponsorship requests specify decisions, risks, timing and required authority
• Informal networks assessed without bypassing governance or accountable leaders
• Upward influence adapts evidence, options and recommendations to executive priorities

Participants can create an actionable plan for resolving a current or anticipated workplace conflict.

• Conflict case analysis integrates diagnosis, influence, negotiation and escalation choices
• Intervention plans define desired outcomes, stakeholders, messages and sequencing
• Pre-conversation checklists test assumptions, power dynamics and ethical limits
• Success measures track agreements, relationships, decisions and recurring issue patterns
• After-action reviews capture lessons from difficult conversations and unresolved tensions
• Personal 90-day application plan sets commitments, feedback sources and review dates