One concern leads to another. Then someone brings up a coworker, an old decision, a past frustration, or something that happened three months ago. Pretty soon, nobody is talking about the thing that actually needs to be addressed.
Good feedback stays specific enough to be useful.
What happened? What impact did it have? What needs to change? What support would help?
If the other issues seem important to the other person, put a pin in them and schedule a time to come back to them. For now, stay with the one that needs attention.
What helps you keep a difficult conversation focused when everything starts spilling into it? ...
The meeting started late. The email was copied to the director. The decision was changed after the discussion.
No disagreement there.
But one person experienced it as disrespect. Another saw it as efficiency. One felt undermined. The other thought they were simply doing their job.
Managers often try to resolve workplace conflict by reconstructing the timeline and determining what objectively happened.
That matters. But chronology alone may not tell you why the conflict has teeth.
Ask what the event meant to each person. What impact did it have? What did they assume about the other person’s intent? What did it seem to say about trust, authority, fairness, or respect?
Sometimes the facts are settled long before the conflict is. ...
Two employees are in conflict. One is visibly upset, defensive, or reactive. The other stays composed.
A manager may think, “They’re the more reasonable one. Maybe they can bend a little.”
It makes sense in the moment. But over time, the person with more self-control can end up doing all the adapting: choosing their words more carefully, absorbing more frustration, making more concessions, and carrying more of the repair work.
Composure is not the same thing as responsibility.
A fair process asks everyone involved to own their part in the conflict. ...
Managers trying to resolve workplace conflict often reach for symmetry: equal airtime, identical expectations, the same coaching for both people.
It feels fair.
But conflicts are not always symmetrical. One person may have more authority. One behavior may have had more impact. One person may have crossed a boundary the other did not.
Neutrality doesn’t mean ignoring those differences. It means giving everyone a fair process while responding to what actually happened.
Every Thursday afternoon, Jordan sends Casey a report.
Every Friday morning, Casey sends it back with corrections.
By Friday afternoon, somebody is annoyed.
The office diagnosis is simple: Jordan is careless. Casey is impossible to please. Personality conflict.
Case closed? Look a little closer.
Jordan has three hours to finish a report that used to take six. Casey is responsible for errors but has no authority to change the process. Their departments use different definitions for two of the same metrics. And the meeting where those differences used to get sorted out disappeared months ago.
Suddenly our two “difficult people” have some company.
Workplace conflict has a habitat. Roles, deadlines, incentives, history, leadership, systems and culture can all wander into the room with the people having the argument.
So when the same conflict keeps resurfacing, widen the lens: What else is helping this problem happen? ...
Sometimes conflict feels stuck because all of our attention is on the other person.
If they would just listen... If they would stop interrupting... If they would admit what they did... If they would change...
Maybe they will. Maybe they won’t.
But even in a difficult dynamic, you still have choices about how you participate in it.
You can slow the conversation down. Ask a different question. Name the pattern instead of repeating it. Set a boundary. Clarify what you need. Decide what you’re willing to keep engaging with.
None of that guarantees the other person will respond the way you want. But it can create movement where there was none before.
You may not control the other person. You can still choose your next move.
We'd love to hear from you: What’s one part of a difficult dynamic that’s actually within your control? ...
You walk into a difficult conversation knowing exactly how it should go.
They need to apologize. They need to admit what happened. They need to agree to your solution.
That can make the conversation feel productive before it even starts. You have a plan. It can also make it very hard to listen.
A better place to start is with intention.
What matters to you here? What do you want the other person to understand? What do you want to understand about them? What would make this conversation worth having?
You can be clear about your needs without scripting the other person’s response. That leaves room for information you didn’t have, options you hadn’t considered, and solutions that may work better than the one you walked in with.
Go in knowing what matters. Leave some room for how you get there.
What’s an intention you’d like to bring to a conversation you need to have? ...
When the check-engine light comes on, most of us don’t solve the problem by putting a piece of tape over it. Workplace conflict deserves the same courtesy.
Friction is information.
The same argument keeps resurfacing. Two people can’t seem to get through a meeting without getting irritated. A team keeps dropping the ball in the same place.
It’s tempting to focus on the visible problem: the tension, the sharp tone, the disagreement.
But conflict often functions like a warning light.
It can point to unclear roles, unmet needs, competing priorities, bad systems, or a conversation that has been avoided for too long.
Pay attention to where the friction keeps showing up. There’s usually something underneath it worth understanding.
Conflict can be the place where a deeper problem finally becomes visible. ...
Sometimes the most skillful move in workplace conflict is to wait a beat before having that conversation.
If you’re flooded, exhausted, furious, or already rehearsing your closing argument in your head, you may technically be in the room—but not in much shape to listen, get curious, or see the other person’s side.
That’s usually when people say the thing they spend the next three weeks trying to explain.
A short pause can be useful. Get some water. Take a walk. Sleep on it if you can. Then come back when you have a little more access to your judgment and a little less access to your flamethrower.
The goal is not to avoid the conflict—It’s to enter it in a state where resolution is possible. ...
Feedback conversations can get crowded fast.
One concern leads to another. Then someone brings up a coworker, an old decision, a past frustration, or something that happened three months ago. Pretty soon, nobody is talking about the thing that actually needs to be addressed.
Good feedback stays specific enough to be useful.
What happened?
What impact did it have?
What needs to change?
What support would help?
If the other issues seem important to the other person, put a pin in them and schedule a time to come back to them. For now, stay with the one that needs attention.
What helps you keep a difficult conversation focused when everything starts spilling into it? ...
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Two employees may agree on exactly what happened.
The meeting started late.
The email was copied to the director.
The decision was changed after the discussion.
No disagreement there.
But one person experienced it as disrespect. Another saw it as efficiency. One felt undermined. The other thought they were simply doing their job.
Managers often try to resolve workplace conflict by reconstructing the timeline and determining what objectively happened.
That matters. But chronology alone may not tell you why the conflict has teeth.
Ask what the event meant to each person. What impact did it have? What did they assume about the other person’s intent? What did it seem to say about trust, authority, fairness, or respect?
Sometimes the facts are settled long before the conflict is. ...
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Two employees are in conflict. One is visibly upset, defensive, or reactive. The other stays composed.
A manager may think, “They’re the more reasonable one. Maybe they can bend a little.”
It makes sense in the moment. But over time, the person with more self-control can end up doing all the adapting: choosing their words more carefully, absorbing more frustration, making more concessions, and carrying more of the repair work.
Composure is not the same thing as responsibility.
A fair process asks everyone involved to own their part in the conflict. ...
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Managers trying to resolve workplace conflict often reach for symmetry: equal airtime, identical expectations, the same coaching for both people.
It feels fair.
But conflicts are not always symmetrical. One person may have more authority. One behavior may have had more impact. One person may have crossed a boundary the other did not.
Neutrality doesn’t mean ignoring those differences. It means giving everyone a fair process while responding to what actually happened.
Fairness is not always sameness. ...
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Every Thursday afternoon, Jordan sends Casey a report.
Every Friday morning, Casey sends it back with corrections.
By Friday afternoon, somebody is annoyed.
The office diagnosis is simple: Jordan is careless. Casey is impossible to please. Personality conflict.
Case closed?
Look a little closer.
Jordan has three hours to finish a report that used to take six. Casey is responsible for errors but has no authority to change the process. Their departments use different definitions for two of the same metrics. And the meeting where those differences used to get sorted out disappeared months ago.
Suddenly our two “difficult people” have some company.
Workplace conflict has a habitat. Roles, deadlines, incentives, history, leadership, systems and culture can all wander into the room with the people having the argument.
So when the same conflict keeps resurfacing, widen the lens:
What else is helping this problem happen? ...
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Sometimes conflict feels stuck because all of our attention is on the other person.
If they would just listen...
If they would stop interrupting...
If they would admit what they did...
If they would change...
Maybe they will. Maybe they won’t.
But even in a difficult dynamic, you still have choices about how you participate in it.
You can slow the conversation down.
Ask a different question.
Name the pattern instead of repeating it.
Set a boundary.
Clarify what you need.
Decide what you’re willing to keep engaging with.
None of that guarantees the other person will respond the way you want. But it can create movement where there was none before.
You may not control the other person. You can still choose your next move.
We'd love to hear from you: What’s one part of a difficult dynamic that’s actually within your control? ...
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
You walk into a difficult conversation knowing exactly how it should go.
They need to apologize.
They need to admit what happened.
They need to agree to your solution.
That can make the conversation feel productive before it even starts. You have a plan. It can also make it very hard to listen.
A better place to start is with intention.
What matters to you here?
What do you want the other person to understand?
What do you want to understand about them?
What would make this conversation worth having?
You can be clear about your needs without scripting the other person’s response.
That leaves room for information you didn’t have, options you hadn’t considered, and solutions that may work better than the one you walked in with.
Go in knowing what matters. Leave some room for how you get there.
What’s an intention you’d like to bring to a conversation you need to have? ...
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
When the check-engine light comes on, most of us don’t solve the problem by putting a piece of tape over it. Workplace conflict deserves the same courtesy.
Friction is information.
The same argument keeps resurfacing. Two people can’t seem to get through a meeting without getting irritated. A team keeps dropping the ball in the same place.
It’s tempting to focus on the visible problem: the tension, the sharp tone, the disagreement.
But conflict often functions like a warning light.
It can point to unclear roles, unmet needs, competing priorities, bad systems, or a conversation that has been avoided for too long.
Pay attention to where the friction keeps showing up. There’s usually something underneath it worth understanding.
Conflict can be the place where a deeper problem finally becomes visible. ...
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Sometimes the most skillful move in workplace conflict is to wait a beat before having that conversation.
If you’re flooded, exhausted, furious, or already rehearsing your closing argument in your head, you may technically be in the room—but not in much shape to listen, get curious, or see the other person’s side.
That’s usually when people say the thing they spend the next three weeks trying to explain.
A short pause can be useful. Get some water. Take a walk. Sleep on it if you can. Then come back when you have a little more access to your judgment and a little less access to your flamethrower.
The goal is not to avoid the conflict—It’s to enter it in a state where resolution is possible. ...
1 CommentsComment on Facebook