Interview with Rodrigo Guillermo de Reynoso Márquez
It allows me to interview Rodrigo so that from his lively voice he describes conflict resolution and has the opportunity to capture some examples within his extensive practice on this topic. He kindly agreed to meet me at his house and interview the realization at the edge of the pool where he has a room on the terrace, I must say he gave me a glass of the famous Portuguese white green wine with excellent taste.
Rodrigo is the professional who heads the Negotiation, Conflict Resolution and Mediation section of the company RVSL Aachen UG and is the President of the Public Relations company REYN PR and Marketing UG with a specialty in Reputation Management as well as Crisis Management. Both companies are based in the City of Cologne in Germany and also have representation in the Republic of Portugal.
Rodrigo works in both Germany and Portugal, America, Spain, Malta.
You could tell me that he is a specialist in conflict resolution and if this topic is treated under legal formalities.
Not what we seek is to avoid litigation to preserve the relationship between the parties as much as possible and sometimes reestablish the good relationship between the parties. It is always sought that between two parties that are in conflict that each one clarifies their position, understand the motivation of the counterparty and avoid or clarify misunderstandings. In turn, I state that both parties are not in the conflict to harm the other but that it is a non-personal matter, but rather a defense of legitimate interest.
Mainly in this time of high supply and low demand, it is not beneficial to lose trust between the parties and on many occasions a relationship of several years.
Many times it is worth leaving aside certain positions and bringing interests as well as coincidences, conflicts frequently arise in any human relationship, more frequently in commercial relationships and the objective of why that relationship is held is lost. Conflict resolution and management seek that the two parties recover the reason for that relationship, the positive aspects of it, put aside the misinterpreted attitudes and find an adequate and satisfactory solution for both.
Could you exemplify the above with a living example at hand? Perhaps with some government institutions of which we all have a lot of respect as the Treasury or Ministry of Labor as examples.
I had a case that I personally like the conclusion was with the Finance Office of a federal state in Germany. An automotive company contacted me to request support since, due to the economic situation that prevailed in the last quarter of 2019 and that was complicated by the breakdown of the pandemic, it had not complied with the payment of taxes and the cancellation of contracts coupled with delays in the collection did not paint a promising picture. Explaining to the financier of the Treasury the situation of the company in a personal and direct way, I achieved a second meeting with the presence of the representatives of the company contacting a total opening of embassies and we achieved an extension relative to the payment period, a reduction of interest and As well as expanding the account, it was possible to verify that a tax withheld from an exempt who had already left the company was paid and the calculation presented by the Treasury was no longer valid by the collaborator at that time, had already been withdrawn.
On another occasion a client asked me to intervene to reconcile with his client who had suspended payments because he considered that he was overcharging, our client considered that this attitude was motivated by a new financial manager of his client so that both felt betrayed and continue to escalate the situation until reaching this impasse. In private sessions between us and the client of our clients we were able to clarify that the service fully and thoroughly complied with the contract and that our client always gave an extra service without charging it as a sample of emission. In the meeting between both parties, the misunderstandings were clarified and the relationship to date continues on the right track.
When such an intervention ends, such as ensuring that there are no grudges between participants, is this really possible?
When he explains the situations without personalizing on an objective basis and under a criterion of justice where both parties win, once the solution arrives, both parties restore trust and with it, harmony. It is important to avoid insults, disqualifications, and point out blame. Establishing that a good faith agreement is sought and a dynamic focused on solutions with good results is generated.
Can the process also be applied to individuals?
Of course under the premise that any conflict leads to a solution, this problem-based system applies to families, siblings both in private life and in the sphere of the family business. I had a case of a Lady who was in a crisis since her partner inherited half of her house from her son and urged him to demand that the Lady sell him the other half through a realtor, the Lady was she felt affected and was subject to a psychological crisis. Finally, in sessions first with the son and then with the Lady in question, a basis of agreement was established and the personal conflict was diluted, later in a meeting with both parties, an agreement satisfactory for both parties was reached, today the Lady lives in another population in a house appropriate for the size of the house, the son visits his mother frequently and takes his wife and children to these visits. The Lady now has a new partner and her psychological condition has greatly improved.