Workplace conflict has expenses that never make it into the budget.
A ten-minute conversation becomes three separate debriefs. Someone spends half an hour rewriting an email so it can’t possibly be misunderstood. People start copying extra colleagues, avoiding each other, documenting everything, and having meetings about the meeting.
Nobody enters “unresolved conflict: 2.5 hours” on the timesheet.
But somebody is paying for it.
That’s one reason it’s worth addressing workplace conflict before everyone gets very good at working around it. ...
“Have you talked to them directly?” is often good advice. Sometimes it’s exactly the right next step.
But when trust is already thin, emotions are high, or each person is bracing for another round, sending them back into the same conversation with no structure can make the conflict worse.
That’s where leadership judgment matters.
Sometimes people need a direct conversation. Sometimes they need coaching, clearer ground rules, or a neutral facilitator to help the conversation stay useful.
How do you know when a conflict is ready for direct conversation—and when it needs more structure first? ...
Monday morning, Jordan stops by their manager’s office.
“I need to talk to you about Maggie.”
Jordan explains the missed handoff, the tense email, the meeting that went sideways. By the end of ten minutes, the manager has a pretty clear picture of what happened.
Then Maggie comes in that afternoon.
Same events. Very different story.
The problem is that the manager is no longer hearing Maggie on a blank page. The first story has already started shaping what seems believable, important, or suspicious.
Psychologists call that anchoring: the first information we receive can become a reference point for everything that follows.
In workplace conflict, it helps to deliberately separate:
What I was told first from What I actually know
The first story may be accurate. It may also be incomplete. ...
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? ...
Workplace conflict has expenses that never make it into the budget.
A ten-minute conversation becomes three separate debriefs. Someone spends half an hour rewriting an email so it can’t possibly be misunderstood. People start copying extra colleagues, avoiding each other, documenting everything, and having meetings about the meeting.
Nobody enters “unresolved conflict: 2.5 hours” on the timesheet.
But somebody is paying for it.
That’s one reason it’s worth addressing workplace conflict before everyone gets very good at working around it. ...
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
“Have you talked to them directly?” is often good advice. Sometimes it’s exactly the right next step.
But when trust is already thin, emotions are high, or each person is bracing for another round, sending them back into the same conversation with no structure can make the conflict worse.
That’s where leadership judgment matters.
Sometimes people need a direct conversation. Sometimes they need coaching, clearer ground rules, or a neutral facilitator to help the conversation stay useful.
How do you know when a conflict is ready for direct conversation—and when it needs more structure first? ...
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Monday morning, Jordan stops by their manager’s office.
“I need to talk to you about Maggie.”
Jordan explains the missed handoff, the tense email, the meeting that went sideways. By the end of ten minutes, the manager has a pretty clear picture of what happened.
Then Maggie comes in that afternoon.
Same events. Very different story.
The problem is that the manager is no longer hearing Maggie on a blank page. The first story has already started shaping what seems believable, important, or suspicious.
Psychologists call that anchoring: the first information we receive can become a reference point for everything that follows.
In workplace conflict, it helps to deliberately separate:
What I was told first
from
What I actually know
The first story may be accurate. It may also be incomplete. ...
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
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