By the time Lee visited Thomas, a seasoned dispute resolution professional, to request a mediation, he was frustrated and confused.  Sandy, Lee’s valued employee, had approached Lee regarding a conflict she was having with a co-worker that she described as bullying.   Thomas, as good conflict professionals do, asked a few high-level questions to get started and was prepared to listen before recommending anything.   Right away, a familiar picture emerged when Lee pulled out his legal pad with plenty of notes.   Indeed, the flipping back and forth between pages of statements made Thomas wonder what Lee must have looked like to his employee because he was conducting an inquiry instead of listening. Though full of details, Lee lacked contextual understanding.  Thomas, as he was trying to sort the situation out, wasn’t doing much better and likewise felt overwhelmed.   

Despite many well-intentioned training and intervention efforts to help leaders deal with conflict, a vital piece  is missing:  how to take useful notes and still be present as you listen.   For the past 20 plus years as Alternative Dispute Conflict practitioners (primarily working as ombudsman, conflict coaches, and mediators), we’ve helped rebuild thousands of workplace relationships, and we’ve learned a lot about how to conduct an initial intake that launches everyone into sorting through the issues underpinning conflict.   We examined what we do differently to resolve issues based on our real work, and created the S.O.R.T.E.D model to provide a guided framework for information intake:

S = Supportable

• There is evidence—e-mails, witnessed, documentation, on social media

• Often stated by the employee as proof

  • Careful.   This statement is different than a determination of fact because something written is not a fact, and is often interpreted by the employee.   However, it is important to remember there is something documented.   

O = Objectionable

• What was the trigger(s)?

• What caused the person to seek help?  When the person decided to call for help, what happened that prompted the request?

• Clearly and concisely stated

• Briefly, repeat it back because this summary may be the only time the person has heard it or thought about it so clearly.

R = Reaction

• What was the employee’s immediate reaction?  What did he or she specifically do, think, and feel immediately after triggered?

• What were the employee’s first actions after that?   Did they file a report, seek a mentor, tell a friend, etc.

T= Thoughts

• Different than what is supportable, what does the employee think is happening?

• What does the employee think the other person(s) is doing, and why?

• What does the employee believe to be true, but does not have evidence?

E = Emotions

• Different than the immediate reaction and feelings, how does the employee feel now?

• Does the employee have a perspective for the other person’s emotions?

• Does the employee feel like there is no hope to resolve this conflict?

D = Desires

• Going back to when the employee brought this to you, what was that goal(s)?

• What does the employee want to happen now (catharsis?)

• What would make this person feel whole again?

• Moving past the point of the pain or concern, what is possible now from the employee’s perspective?  

Our model, meant to capture and simplify complex conflict conversations, encourages you to be open to perspective, with a wildly curious mindset, taking the time to be in the moment yet still have enough useful notes remember.  Using the S.O.R.T.E.D framework, you’ll have a much greater chance to capture and recall the information you need to do some reflective thinking later and then co-create the next steps.