Comment by jjk166

> If a manager is handling (almost) all disputes of all sorts, then they will fundamentally lack authority to enforce an outcome on a real dispute. They simply are too involved because resolution requires you to take some sort of side.

Bullshit. Being a routine mediator makes you a better mediator when big things come up, not a worse one. It means you are in tune with the particular needs and idiosyncrasies of the people involved, and assuming you are any good at it, it means you have the trust of all parties to mediate fairly.

> If my children won't speak to each other I will refuse to be the go between because I become a proxy for one to the other.

First of all, managing adults and parenting children are two radically different things. Second, being a go between is not handling a dispute, if anything it facilitates the dispute. Kids can't agree on whose turn it is to play with a toy? Toy gets taken away with the understanding they'll get it back when they agree to a system - that's conflict resolution.

> If one then punches the other they won't respect my perspective that this was wrong because I've set myself up as the proxy for the others feelings.

What?

> If you need a manger to resolve the above example, the org is broken and the engineers are poor engineers.

The fact there is this conflict to resolve is evidence that the org is broken and the engineers are poor engineers, but given that there is a conflict, the manager should be the one resolving it, because, again, that is their job.