A disagreement over priorities. Frustration about workload. A conversation that becomes personal. As a leader, you will encounter workplace conflict in different forms.
Your response helps shape what happens next. Addressing an issue constructively gives people an opportunity to clarify expectations, understand different perspectives and agree on a way forward.
Effective workplace conflict resolution involves recognising conflict early, understanding its root causes, choosing an appropriate response and following through on agreed actions.
The aim is to help people work through differences respectfully while maintaining clear expectations for behaviour and performance.
1. Recognise Both Overt and Subtle Workplace Conflict
Some forms of workplace conflict are easy to identify. Others require closer attention.
Overt conflict may include direct arguments, openly challenging someone’s decisions or making personal criticisms.
Subtle conflict may appear as repeated dismissive comments, avoiding necessary conversations, excluding someone from relevant discussions or withholding information needed to complete a task.
As a leader, look for patterns without jumping to conclusions. A quiet employee or a delayed response does not, by itself, demonstrate conflict.
For example, if two colleagues stop communicating directly and begin passing every request through you, explore what has changed.
You could ask:
“I’ve noticed that recent handovers have been coming through me. Is something making it difficult for you to coordinate directly?”
This opens a conversation around an observable behaviour.
2. Analyse the Root Causes Before Choosing a Solution
The issue people argue about may be only part of the problem.
A disagreement about a missed deadline could involve miscommunication, differing interests, competing priorities, unclear responsibilities or insufficient resources.
Even an apparent personality clash deserves closer examination. What specific behaviours are causing difficulty? Are expectations clear? Do the people involved understand each other’s responsibilities?
Useful questions include:
- What happened, and what information supports that account?
- What did each person understand had been agreed?
- What pressures or priorities influenced their actions?
- Where are responsibilities or expectations unclear?
- What needs to change to prevent the issue recurring?
Imagine a project manager who wants work completed quickly and an operations supervisor who needs more time to allocate resources. Their disagreement may reflect conflicting priorities rather than a lack of cooperation.
Clarifying how priorities are agreed could be more useful than simply asking them to communicate better.
3. Recognise Conflict Escalation and Intervene Early
Understanding conflict escalation helps leaders recognise warning signs and adjust their response before a situation becomes harder to manage.
A mild disagreement can become increasingly personal. People may repeat accusations, assume negative intentions or seek support from colleagues against the other person. At a more serious level, communication may break down and work may be disrupted.
This is an illustrative pattern, rather than a fixed sequence every conflict follows.
Watch for changes such as:
- Discussions shifting from the issue to personal criticism.
- Increasingly hostile messages or exchanges.
- Colleagues becoming drawn into opposing groups.
- Repeated avoidance of essential work interactions.
- Agreements breaking down without explanation.
Early intervention might involve a private check-in, clarifying responsibilities or arranging a structured discussion.
Where there are threats, serious misconduct or allegations requiring a formal response, follow your organisation’s procedures and involve the appropriate people. A joint conversation will not suit every situation.
4. Understand the Five Responses to Conflict
Leaders also need to recognise how their own behaviour influences a disagreement.
The Thomas–Kilmann model identifies five conflict-handling modes: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding and accommodating. These reflect different combinations of assertiveness – addressing your own concerns – and cooperativeness – addressing the other person’s concerns.
| Response | What it involves | A possible workplace application |
| Competing | Pursuing your position firmly | Making a time-critical decision when you have responsibility and sufficient information |
| Collaborating | Exploring a solution that addresses both parties’ concerns | Working through recurring disagreements about shared resources |
| Compromising | Each party accepting some concessions | Agreeing on an acceptable interim arrangement |
| Avoiding | Choosing not to engage immediately | Pausing a heated discussion and agreeing when to return to it |
| Accommodating | Giving greater weight to the other person’s concerns | Accepting a colleague’s preference on an issue of low importance to you |
No single response is best in every situation. The value of the model is learning to choose deliberately and adapt as circumstances change. These are behavioural options, rather than permanent personality labels.
For a leader, useful self-reflection includes:
“Am I choosing this response because it suits the situation, or because it is the approach I usually feel most comfortable using?”
5. Use a Structured Conflict Resolution Conversation
A clear process helps leaders move from initially addressing a conflict through to resolution and follow-up.
Prepare and Set Expectations
Clarify the concern, gather relevant information and consider whether you are the right person to facilitate the discussion.
Choose a suitable setting and explain the purpose. Where a joint discussion is appropriate, establish expectations for respectful communication and listening without interruption.
Hear Each Perspective
Give each person an opportunity to explain what happened, how it affected their work and what they believe needs to change.
Separate observations from interpretations.
For example, “The report arrived two days after the agreed date” is more useful to explore than “You don’t respect my work.”
Acknowledge concerns while checking the facts. Hearing someone’s perspective does not require accepting every conclusion they draw.
Define the Problem Together
Summarise the issue in practical terms:
“You both need a reliable handover. At the moment, there is no shared agreement about what information must be provided or when.”
Check whether this captures the problem accurately before moving to solutions.
Explore Options and Agree on Actions
Ask each person to suggest workable changes. Discuss what each option would require and how it would address the underlying issue.
Make the agreement specific:
“From Monday, the outgoing supervisor will complete the handover checklist before the shift ends. Both supervisors will review any gaps at the start of the next shift.”
Confirm who will do what, by when and how progress will be reviewed.
6. Follow Up After the Conversation
A calm meeting does not necessarily mean the conflict has been resolved.
Follow-up helps you assess whether agreed changes are happening and whether they are improving how people work together.
Ask:
- Have the agreed actions been completed?
- What has improved?
- What difficulties remain?
- Does the agreement need adjustment?
- Is further support required?
Also examine your own contribution. Have you created competing deadlines, left responsibilities unclear or responded inconsistently to concerns?
Leadership accountability includes addressing the conditions that may be contributing to conflict.
