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. ...
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? ...
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
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