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. ...
A colleague cuts you off in a meeting. You think, “They don’t respect me.”
Your supervisor changes direction on a project. You think, “They don’t trust my judgment.”
Someone doesn’t respond to your email. You think, “They’re avoiding me.”
Maybe those interpretations are right. But maybe they’re not.
Conflict often grows in the space between what happened and the story we tell ourselves about what happened.
Once we’ve decided what someone else’s behavior means, we start responding to that meaning. We get defensive. We withdraw. We push harder. And the other person responds to that.
Before long, the story starts shaping the relationship.
One of the simplest things we can do when conflict starts brewing is ask: What do I actually know here, and what am I filling in?
Sometimes that question is enough to open the door to curiosity before certainty takes over. ...
People in conflict tend to pull on their own thread and wonder why the fabric keeps getting tighter.
A neutral facilitator helps hold the loom steady long enough for everyone to see the pattern they are making. Once the whole pattern is visible, people have a much better chance of changing it.
That is often the beginning of resolving workplace conflict.
Where could your team use a steadier process right now? ...
They know where the file lives, who needs to be copied, which form is secretly the right form, and how to calm down the person in Accounting before the whole afternoon catches fire.
Wonderful.
Also dangerous, if nobody is paying attention.
Because sometimes “helping” becomes rescuing.
One person catches the mistakes, fills the gaps, smooths over the awkward parts, and keeps the wheels from falling off the wagon. Everyone appreciates them, right up until they are exhausted, resentful, and wondering why basic responsibility has become a one-person hobby.
Meanwhile, the people being rescued may never learn what needs to change. The team may never see where the process is broken. And leaders may mistake one person’s heroic overfunctioning for a system that is working.
That is a fine recipe for workplace conflict.
A useful question is:
“Am I helping this person succeed, or am I protecting everyone from the consequences of something that needs to be addressed?”
Good help builds capacity. Rescuing buys short-term peace and often creates a longer-term mess.
Who is doing too much of the catching, smoothing, and fixing on your team? What would change if the person who always saves the day stopped doing it?
A manager said something in a facilitated meeting recently that made the whole room change: “I think I’ve been defending my decision when I should have been explaining it.”
There’s a difference. Defending tries to prove the decision was right. Explaining helps people understand what you were weighing, what you knew at the time, and how you got there.
You don’t have to agree with someone’s decision to understand it better.
Sometimes that little bit of context is enough to lower the temperature.
What helps you understand a decision you disagree with? ...
Sometimes the most useful thing a manager can do is have the conversation they’ve been avoiding.
Clarify the expectation that never got clarified. Ask the question everyone has been answering on the other person’s behalf. Name the small behavior that has somehow acquired six weeks of history and a supporting cast.
Before bringing in outside help, it may be worth asking:
Have the people involved actually talked directly about the problem? Do they understand what the other person thinks is happening? Are expectations clear? Has the manager addressed the parts that are theirs to address? And is the conflict truly stuck — or has everyone just been carefully walking around it?
Sometimes a good conversation is enough. Sometimes it becomes obvious pretty quickly that it isn’t. Knowing the difference is part of the work.
What do you wish managers would try before calling HR?
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
A colleague cuts you off in a meeting.
You think, “They don’t respect me.”
Your supervisor changes direction on a project.
You think, “They don’t trust my judgment.”
Someone doesn’t respond to your email.
You think, “They’re avoiding me.”
Maybe those interpretations are right.
But maybe they’re not.
Conflict often grows in the space between what happened and the story we tell ourselves about what happened.
Once we’ve decided what someone else’s behavior means, we start responding to that meaning. We get defensive. We withdraw. We push harder. And the other person responds to that.
Before long, the story starts shaping the relationship.
One of the simplest things we can do when conflict starts brewing is ask:
What do I actually know here, and what am I filling in?
Sometimes that question is enough to open the door to curiosity before certainty takes over. ...
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
People in conflict tend to pull on their own thread and wonder why the fabric keeps getting tighter.
A neutral facilitator helps hold the loom steady long enough for everyone to see the pattern they are making. Once the whole pattern is visible, people have a much better chance of changing it.
That is often the beginning of resolving workplace conflict.
Where could your team use a steadier process right now? ...
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Labels are sticky.
Call someone “lazy,” “difficult,” “a bully,” or “impossible” during a workplace conflict, and that word can outlive the conversation that produced it.
We’ve seen people work through the actual disagreement and still remember the insult months later.
Being candid does not require turning a concern into a verdict about someone’s character.
Instead of “You’re unreliable,” try describing the thing that happened and what you need going forward.
Specific behavior gives people something they can work with.
A label usually gives them something to defend against. ...
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Every workplace has someone who can fix things.
They know where the file lives, who needs to be copied, which form is secretly the right form, and how to calm down the person in Accounting before the whole afternoon catches fire.
Wonderful.
Also dangerous, if nobody is paying attention.
Because sometimes “helping” becomes rescuing.
One person catches the mistakes, fills the gaps, smooths over the awkward parts, and keeps the wheels from falling off the wagon. Everyone appreciates them, right up until they are exhausted, resentful, and wondering why basic responsibility has become a one-person hobby.
Meanwhile, the people being rescued may never learn what needs to change. The team may never see where the process is broken. And leaders may mistake one person’s heroic overfunctioning for a system that is working.
That is a fine recipe for workplace conflict.
A useful question is:
“Am I helping this person succeed, or am I protecting everyone from the consequences of something that needs to be addressed?”
Good help builds capacity.
Rescuing buys short-term peace and often creates a longer-term mess.
Who is doing too much of the catching, smoothing, and fixing on your team?
What would change if the person who always saves the day stopped doing it?
#WeFixWorkplaceConflict #WorkplaceConflict #LeadershipDevelopment #TeamCommunication #ManagementSkills ...
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
A manager said something in a facilitated meeting recently that made the whole room change: “I think I’ve been defending my decision when I should have been explaining it.”
There’s a difference. Defending tries to prove the decision was right. Explaining helps people understand what you were weighing, what you knew at the time, and how you got there.
You don’t have to agree with someone’s decision to understand it better.
Sometimes that little bit of context is enough to lower the temperature.
What helps you understand a decision you disagree with? ...
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Not every sticky situation needs mediation.
Sometimes the most useful thing a manager can do is have the conversation they’ve been avoiding.
Clarify the expectation that never got clarified.
Ask the question everyone has been answering on the other person’s behalf.
Name the small behavior that has somehow acquired six weeks of history and a supporting cast.
Before bringing in outside help, it may be worth asking:
Have the people involved actually talked directly about the problem?
Do they understand what the other person thinks is happening?
Are expectations clear?
Has the manager addressed the parts that are theirs to address?
And is the conflict truly stuck — or has everyone just been carefully walking around it?
Sometimes a good conversation is enough.
Sometimes it becomes obvious pretty quickly that it isn’t.
Knowing the difference is part of the work.
What do you wish managers would try before calling HR?
#WorkplaceConflict #LeadershipDevelopment #ConflictResolution #ManagementSkills #TeamCommunication ...
0 CommentsComment on Facebook