HBR Guide to Dealing with Conflict (HBR Guide Series)

HBR Guide to

Dealing with

Conﬂ ict

Harvard Business Review Guides

Arm yourself with the advice you need to succeed on the

job, from the most trusted brand in business. Packed

with how-to essentials from leading experts, the HBR

Guides provide smart answers to your most pressing

work challenges.

The titles include:

HBR Guide to Being More Productive

HBR Guide to Better Business Writing

HBR Guide to Building Your Business Case

HBR Guide to Buying a Small Business

HBR Guide to Coaching Employees

HBR Guide to Data Analytics Basics for Managers

HBR Guide to Delivering Effective Feedback

HBR Guide to Emotional Intelligence

HBR Guide to Finance Basics for Managers

HBR Guide to Getting the Right Work Done

HBR Guide to Leading Teams

HBR Guide to Making Every Meeting Matter

HBR Guide to Managing Stress at Work

HBR Guide to Managing Up and Across

HBR Guide to Negotiating

HBR Guide to Ofﬁce Politics

HBR Guide to Performance Management

HBR Guide to Persuasive Presentations

HBR Guide to Project Management

HBR Guide to

Dealing with

Conﬂ ict

Amy Gallo

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW PRESS

Boston, Massachusetts

HBR Press Quantity Sales Discounts

Harvard Business Review Press titles are available at signiﬁ cant

quantity discounts when purchased in bulk for client gifts, sales

promotions, and premiums. Special editions, including books with

corporate logos, customized covers, and letters from the company

or CEO printed in the front matter, as well as excerpts of existing

books, can also be created in large quantities for special needs.

For details and discount information for both print and ebook for-

mats, contact [email protected], tel. 800-988-0886,

or www.hbr.org/bulksales.

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced

into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means

(electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise),

without the prior permission of the publisher. Requests for permission

should be directed to [email protected], or mailed to

Permissions, Harvard Business School Publishing, 60 Harvard Way,

Boston, Massachusetts 02163.

The web addresses referenced in this book were live and correct at the

time of the book’s publication but may be subject to change.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Gallo, Amy, author.

Title: HBR guide to dealing with conﬂ ict / by Amy Gallo.

Other titles: Harvard Business Review guide to dealing with conﬂ ict |

Harvard business review guides.

Description: Boston, Massachusetts : Harvard Business Review Press,

[2017] | Series: Harvard Business Review guides

Identiﬁ ers: LCCN 2016044710 | ISBN 9781633692152 (pbk. :

alk. paper)

Subjects: LCSH: Conﬂ ict management. | Work environment.

Classiﬁ cation: LCC HD42 .G33 2017 | DDC 658.4/053––dc23 LC

record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016044710

ISBN: 9781633692152

eISBN: 9781633692169

The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the

American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Publications

and Documents in Libraries and Archives Z39.48-1992.

What You’ll Learn

While some of us enjoy a lively debate with colleagues

and others prefer to suppress our feelings over disagree-

ments, we all struggle with conﬂict at work. Every day

we navigate an ofﬁce full of competing interests, clash-

ing personalities, limited time and resources, and frag-

ile egos. Sure, we share the same goals as our colleagues,

but we don’t always agree on how to achieve them. We

work differently. We rub each other the wrong way. We

jockey for position. But disagreements don’t have to be

a source of unhealthy tension. So how can you deal with

conﬂict in a way that is both professional and produc-

tive—where it improves both your work and your rela-

tionships? This guide lays out a straightforward process

for addressing nebulous situations. You start by under-

standing whether you generally seek or avoid conﬂict,

identifying the most frequent reasons for disagreement,

and knowing what approaches work for what scenarios.

Then, if you decide to address your situation, you use

that information to plan and conduct a productive con-

versation. Knowing there is a process to follow can make

What You’ll Learn

conﬂ ict more manageable. This guide will give you the

advice you need to:

• Understand the most common sources of conﬂ ict

• Explore your options for addressing a

disagreement

• Recognize whether you—and your counterpart—

typically seek or avoid conﬂict

• Assess the situation that’s making you feel

uncomfortable

• Prepare for and engage in a difﬁ cult conversation

• Manage your and your counterpart’s emotions

• Develop a resolution together

• Know when to walk away

• Repair relationships

Contents

Preface ix

Conﬂ ict at work is inevitable—but it doesn’t

have to be destructive.

BY LINDA HILL

Introduction: A Practical Plan for Dealing with Conﬂict xvii

Take it step by step.

SECTION ONE

Preparing for Conﬂ ict Before It Happens

1. Types of Conﬂ ict 3

Identify the source.

2. Your Options for Handling Conﬂ ict 15

Diﬀ erent situations call for diﬀ erent

approaches.

3. Recognize Your Natural Tendency 31

Most of us fall into one of two camps.

Contents

viii

SECTION TWO

Managing a Conﬂ ict

4. Assess the Situation 43

Understand the players and the larger

context.

5. Get Ready for the Conversation 61

Don’t rush in.

6. Have a Productive Conversation 75

Listen and be heard.

SECTION THREE

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

7. Get to a Resolution and Make a Plan 101

Collaborate to ﬁ nd a creative solution.

8. Repair the Relationship 111

Rebuild trust and move on.

9. Navigate Common Situations 121

What to do if . . .

Sources 165

Featured Experts 175

Index 185

About the Author 193

Preface

by Linda Hill

Years ago, a colleague and I got into a ﬁ ght. I had been

selected to lead a cross-functional task force to review a

portion of our MBA curricula. This was a diverse group

of people—a few fellow junior faculty, people from other

departments, and professors who had been at the school

for decades, including my senior colleague and friend,

whom I’ll call Elizabeth. I was a brand-new tenured pro-

fessor, and although I was surprised that I’d been picked

to lead the team, I was also honored. And I was glad that

I would be able to rely on Elizabeth for her expertise. Af-

ter all, she had much more experience than I did.

Yet each time the group met, Elizabeth wasn’t partici-

pating. She sat silently and rarely, if ever, had anything

positive to contribute. We’d be talking about a topic that

I knew she had an opinion on, and still she didn’t say

anything.

When she did open her mouth, it was to dispar-

age me. In front of the group, she picked on what I felt

were trivial things, like the fact that I didn’t have all the

Preface

supplemental materials in the same order as they were

listed in the agenda. I could tell that something was

wrong.

So could the rest of the team. People exchanged

glances when Elizabeth openly criticized me for not be-

ing prepared. Some people tried to jump in and move

things along when things got tense between us. But it

was clear that the situation was making the whole team

uncomfortable—me, Elizabeth, and everybody else.

I was confounded. Elizabeth and I had always got-

ten along, and whenever we’d collaborated in the past, it

went well. After a few weeks of enduring her alternating

silent treatment and carping, I decided to talk to her. I

closed her ofﬁ ce door behind me, sat down, and asked,

“We aren’t really working well together, are we?”

I wasn’t prepared for what came next. She started

yelling at me. She thought that I was doing a horrible job

of running the group, that we weren’t making progress

on the evaluation, and that I was wasting her and every-

one else’s time. I felt backed into a corner, and as a re-

sult, I raised my voice, too, defending myself against her

accusations.

This was not a smart way to handle the situation. It

quickly became clear that neither of us wanted to be

ﬁ ghting. I didn’t know what to do. I was concerned that

without Elizabeth on board, the group would never be

able to ﬁ nish our work. And more importantly, I worried

that Elizabeth’s and my relationship, a relationship that

I valued, was going to be irreparably damaged. And she

didn’t seem to be doing any better.

Preface

I’m not proud of what I did—you should never raise

your voice at people at work. It felt horrible at the time;

I was exasperated, angry, upset, questioning myself and

Elizabeth. But our disagreement over who should be in

charge of the group, how it should be run, and whose

expertise needed to be tapped and in what way was not

necessarily negative in and of itself. These questions

needed to be addressed for the group to do its best work

and for me to be effective as a leader.

During our heated exchange we got those issues out

into the open. But how we handled that initial discus-

sion was problematic—we weren’t going to solve the is-

sues we’d raised if we were both defensive. We needed to

work together.

And that’s just the thing—conﬂ ict at work is going to

happen, no matter what you do. And it should. It can be

good for you, your team, and your organization. But how

you deal with it can make the difference between a nega-

tive interaction and a productive one.

That’s why you’ve turned to this guide. We don’t want

to have screaming matches with colleagues. We don’t

want to feel as if our projects will fail unless we give in

to what someone else wants. We don’t want to lose sleep

over an intense interaction. We want to better under-

stand why conﬂ ict happens, our options for addressing

it, and how to navigate these disagreements so that we

end up with our dignity and relationships intact.

Imagine how things with Elizabeth would’ve gone

if I hadn’t just waltzed into her ofﬁ ce and confronted

her. What if I had thought through the discussion in

Preface

xii

advance, considering what Elizabeth and I were actu-

ally disagreeing about, and thinking about our different

personalities? What if I had chosen the right time and

place for us to talk, framed my message carefully, heard

her out, and explained my position? Or what if Elizabeth

had come to me earlier and explained why she wasn’t

participating, made clear that her issues weren’t per-

sonal but had to do with how I was running the group or

what the team was trying to achieve? Instead of sitting

there staring at each other, fuming, we might’ve been en-

gaged in a thoughtful, productive discussion.

Learning to navigate conﬂicts such as the one I had

with Elizabeth is not really a choice in today’s organiza-

tions. There’s always going to be diversity, interdepen-

dence, and competition over scarce resources. And that’s

not a bad thing. When passionate people with different

perspectives collaborate to address a problem or an op-

portunity, there can be give-and-take and productive

disagreement. That healthy competition helps create

better products, features, and solutions. The research

on innovation is clear: Without “creative abrasion” you

won’t have a robust marketplace of new ideas. The most

effective people are those who can disagree construc-

tively, not destructively, and keep difﬁcult conversations

substantive, not personal.

Thankfully, mercifully really, in the middle of our ﬁ ght,

Elizabeth paused and asked if I wanted to get coffee with

her across campus. Not sure what else to do, I agreed.

Preface

xiii

The change of scenery was exactly what we needed.

As we walked across campus, we both calmed down and

Elizabeth opened up about the source of her frustrations.

It turns out that I was driving her crazy. I’m not a linear

thinker and she is. The process I was using was infuri-

ating to her. She wanted to know how each step led to

the next, and I was willing to let things evolve more or-

ganically. Plus she felt as if I wasn’t using her expertise. I

assumed people would speak up if they had ideas—that

those with the most experience, such as Elizabeth, would

chime in when they wanted to, so I didn’t call on any-

one in particular and never met with individual team

members outside the group to get their perspective. By

not calling on her, or openly acknowledging her exper-

tise and asking for her opinion, I had upset her. She felt

that I hadn’t shown her enough respect. It’s not that I

didn’t feel it (in fact, I assumed that she assumed that I

respected her), but I didn’t demonstrate it.

Perhaps what really got me in trouble was that I

hadn’t tried to see the situation from her perspective. I

didn’t think about how she might feel having someone

with far less experience be in charge of something she

cared about so much.

We didn’t see eye to eye on how the committee should

be managed—and she felt mistreated. We both were un-

afraid of conﬂ ict and typically approached it head-on,

which is why we ended up in such a heated exchange in

her ofﬁ ce.

Her complaints made me realize that perhaps oth-

ers in the group were having similar reactions. I wasn’t

Preface

xiv

adapting my style for what worked best for the team—

I was doing what was most comfortable to me. Also, I

had assumed that by virtue of holding the leadership po-

sition, I had credibility. I didn’t think I needed to earn

everyone’s trust, but I absolutely did.

Once we understood what exactly we were ﬁghting

about, and we had heard each other out, we were able

to move toward a resolution. I asked for Elizabeth’s ad-

vice. How would she run the group? I was a new leader,

and I wanted to learn from her. We both wanted the

same thing—to produce the best curricula for our stu-

dents—and to get there, I vowed to be more respectful

of the wisdom and experience she brought to the group

and to be more explicit about the process I was using to

run the meetings. I started to ask her opinion before the

team met. If I thought there was something she wouldn’t

agree with, I gave her a heads-up. And I started regularly

asking everyone to suggest options before we started

evaluating them so that we could objectively look at the

pros and cons.

Elizabeth made changes after our discussion, too.

She stopped nitpicking. She backed off and gave me

more space. Because everyone deeply respected her, the

change in her attitude inﬂ uenced the group positively.

People were more at ease and offered ideas freely. Sug-

gestions were no longer “Elizabeth’s idea” or “Linda’s

idea”; they were all viable options we could evaluate

based on their merits.

I was fortunate. I was able to preserve my relationship

with Elizabeth, and the task force’s work was better as a

consequence of our ﬁ ght.

Preface

Looking back, I wish I had had the advice in this book

before I spoke to Elizabeth. I could’ve saved us both a lot

of grief if I had better understood the common sources

of conﬂ ict, how people approach it differently, and the

various options and strategies for solving it.

That’s what you’ll get in the pages ahead. You’ll learn

how to effectively navigate conﬂicts with your boss, your

peers, your direct reports, and partners outside your

company. You’ll do the foundational work of better un-

derstanding the different types of conﬂict, your own

tendency toward approaching it, and your options for

resolving it. Then you’ll learn the process to follow when

a speciﬁc conﬂict arises—from assessing what kind of

conﬂict it is, to preparing for the conversation, to hear-

ing your counterpart out, and to ultimately reaching a

satisfying resolution and repairing your relationship, if

necessary.

Mastering all of this will not absolve you from having

ﬁ ghts at work. I still have them, for sure. We all do, and

maybe on occasion you will lose your temper, say some-

thing ugly, and behave in a way that you regret. But by

following the advice in this book, those occasions will be

fewer and less painful—for you and your colleagues.

xvii

Introduction: A Practical Plan

for Dealing with Conﬂ ict

Let’s face it: There’s no such thing as a conﬂ ict-free of-

ﬁ ce. We ﬁ ght at work. We disagree about how to imple-

ment a new IT system. We battle over which strategy to

pursue. We engage in turf wars about who gets to lead

the website redesign project. And sometimes, we just act

like passive- aggressive jerks toward one another.

And as uncomfortable and draining as conﬂ ict can be,

conﬂ ict in and of itself isn’t really the problem. It’s how

we handle it that matters.

Consider these two ﬁ ctional stories:

Celia and her colleague, Sara, disagreed about how to

word an important provision in a client contract. As

the legal expert, Celia felt Sara’s suggestion was too

vague and perhaps even intentionally deceptive to the

customer—implying better payment terms than their

company was willing to allow. When Celia pointed out

how the language might be misinterpreted, Sara stood

her ground. Celia knew that this was an important

customer for the company, and the CEO was eagerly

Introduction

xviii

awaiting news that the deal was closed, so she let it go.

But she worried for several weeks whether she should’ve

pushed harder. She lost sleep over it, avoided Sara at

the ofﬁ ce, and dreaded the date when the customer

would receive its ﬁ rst invoice. And rightly so—when

that time came, the customer was extremely unhappy

and Celia ended up with Sara in the CEO’s ofﬁ ce hav-

ing an all-out ﬁ ght over whose fault it was. The two

colleagues didn’t speak for weeks afterward, and it took

months for Celia’s manager to regain trust that she

could handle important contracts.

Now, let’s take a look at what happened with a man-

ager named Antonio.

Antonio had always had a positive relationship with

his boss, Rebecca, but lately he noticed that she was

frequently talking over him. As soon as Antonio started

to say something, Rebecca would interrupt, often

dismissing his view and presenting an opposing one.

Antonio was annoyed. He wanted to pull Rebecca aside

and tell her to quit it. But before doing that, he spent

some time trying to understand what was going on and

seeing things from Rebecca’s perspective. He knew that

she wasn’t afraid of conﬂ ict and that she might not see

her behavior as rudely as he did. He also remembered

a conversation in which Rebecca revealed that she was

under pressure from the company’s senior team to

demonstrate that she had fresh ideas. With these things

in mind, he asked Rebecca out for coffee, explained that

he wanted to maintain their relationship but that he

was hurt by her behavior. At ﬁ rst, Rebecca was defen-

Introduction

xix

sive, claiming that it was all in Antonio’s head, but

when he gave a few examples, she conceded that she’d

been stressed and was perhaps taking it out on him. He

offered to support her in meetings, even brainstorming

ideas with her beforehand, and she vowed to watch the

interruptions. They continued to work together for ﬁ ve

more years and relied on each other for candid feed-

back and advice.

You might be tempted to think that Celia was in a

tougher situation than Antonio—she was dealing with a

stubborn peer and an important client situation. She had

the CEO breathing down her neck, too. But Celia’s con-

ﬂ ict wasn’t any worse or more intense than Antonio’s. He

was dealing with his boss—the most inﬂ uential person in

his work life—and stood to lose a lot if things went south.

Antonio simply handled the situation better. He took

time to think through what was really happening, to see

the conﬂ ict from Rebecca’s perspective, and to prepare

for his discussion with her.

Celia, of course, is not alone. When we perceive the

risks of engaging in conﬂ ict to be greater than the po-

tential upsides, many of us prefer to stiﬂ e our feelings

and move on rather than speak up. And understandably

so, as there are negative consequences to mishandling

disagreements.

The Downsides of Conﬂ ict

Linda Hill’s story in the preface and Celia’s story here illus-

trate that when handled poorly—or avoided altogether—

conﬂ ict can derail projects, damage client relationships,

or lose company business. Initiatives slow to a standstill,

Introduction

while warring factions sort out their differences or teams

risk not meeting their goals at all. “Energy and creativ-

ity get siphoned off,” explains Annie McKee, an expert in

emotional intelligence, and rather than focusing on ac-

complishing their objectives, team members are absorbed

by their differences. And people in organizations, says

McKee, “often have a very long memory when it comes

to ﬁ ghting at work. It doesn’t matter what the underlying

cause was or who was right or wrong. All people remem-

ber is that it was a mess, and that you were involved.”

Avoiding conﬂ ict (as Celia chose to do) can just

make things worse. In fact, unspoken disagreements can

have consequences that are as signiﬁ cant as a conference

room shouting match. Jeanne Brett, a negotiations pro-

fessor, warns, “Conﬂ ict that’s not expressed can be worse

than conﬂ ict that is.” Sometimes we’re upset with people

and they have no idea we’re struggling with them. This

negativity can bleed into your interactions. Or worse,

your feelings simmer underneath the surface until your

coworker does something that makes you explode, blind-

siding your unsuspecting colleague.

Conﬂ ict also takes an emotional toll. “When you’re

consumed with a ﬁ ght, it’s hard to draw the boundary

and it often spills over into your life,” says McKee. We

shred our nails worrying about what to say to a colleague

with whom we’re ﬁ ghting, or we waste hours agoniz-

ing over whether we could have better articulated our

perspective on a contentious issue. Over time, persis-

tent conﬂ ict causes health problems. A Duke University

Medical Center study showed that an intensely angry

episode can lead to an eightfold increase in risk of heart

attack, and anger has been linked to strokes, irregular

Introduction

xxi

heartbeat, sleep problems, excess eating, and insulin re-

sistance, which can help cause diabetes.

The Beneﬁ ts of Conﬂ ict

Luckily, however, when handled well, conﬂ ict can have

positive outcomes: It can help you be more creative,

spark new ideas, and even strengthen bonds with your

coworkers, as it did between Antonio and Rebecca.

You might dream of living in a peaceful utopia, but it

wouldn’t be good for your company, your work, or you.

“Conﬂ ict allows the team to come to terms with difﬁ -

cult situations, to synthesize diverse perspectives, and to

make sure solutions are well thought out. Conﬂ ict is un-

comfortable, but it is the source of true innovation and

also a critical process in identifying and mitigating risks,”

says Liane Davey, an expert in team dynamics.

Here are some of the speciﬁ c beneﬁ ts:

• Better work outcomes: When you and your co-

workers push one another to continuously ask if

there’s a better approach, that creative friction is

likely to lead to new solutions. And there’s rarely a

ﬁ xed amount of value to be gained in a disagree-

ment. If you and your colleague are arguing about

the best way to roll out a new initiative—he wants

to launch in a single market ﬁ rst and you want

to enter several at one time—you’ll be forced to

explore the pros and cons of each approach and

ideally ﬁ nd the best solutions. It may be that you

decide to run the pilot he wants but on a shorter

time frame so that you get the revenue from reach-

ing the other markets sooner.

Introduction

xxii

• Opportunity to learn and grow: As uncomfort-

able as it may feel when someone challenges your

ideas, it’s an opportunity to learn. You gain experi-

ence from incorporating feedback, try new things,

and evolve as a manager. When a peer chews you

out after an important presentation because you

didn’t give her team credit for their work, the

words may sting, but you’re more likely to think

through everyone’s perspectives before preparing

your next talk.

• Improved relationships: By working through

conﬂ ict together, you’ll feel closer to the people

around you and gain a better understanding of

what matters to them and how they prefer to work.

You’ll also set an important precedent: that it’s

possible to have “good” ﬁ ghts and then move on.

Two regional managers who engage in a lengthy

debate about who should be responsible for main-

taining quality in their region have, at the end of

the day, learned information about each other that

will help them work better together in the future.

And they’ve shown their teams that it’s possible

to move beyond conﬂ ict, to not get entrenched

in a viewpoint but to make progress toward a

resolution.

•

Job satisfaction: When you’re not afraid to con-

structively disagree, or even ﬁ ght, about issues

at work, you’re likely to be happier to go to the

ofﬁ ce, be satisﬁ ed with what you accomplish, and

enjoy interactions with your colleagues. Instead of

Introduction

xxiii

feeling as if you have to walk on eggshells, you can

focus on getting your work done. A study in China

showed a correlation between the use of certain

approaches to conﬂ ict management—ones in

which employees pursue a win-win situation, care

for others, and focus on common interests—and

an employee’s happiness at work.

For conﬂ ict to have any of these beneﬁ ts, you have to

learn the skills to proactively address problems and en-

gage in healthy discussions. Fortunately, you have ample

opportunity to try. The average person spends nearly

three hours each week dealing with conﬂ ict at work, ac-

cording to a study by CPP Global. Another study by CPP

showed that managers report spending 18% to 26% of

their time dealing with conﬂ icts. Since we spend so much

time engaged in disagreements, it’s worth our effort to

get them right—to temper our reactions and manage the

conﬂ ict so that it’s more productive.

How do you do that? This book will help you break

through the scary, emotional stuff and take a practical,

ordered approach to dealing with conﬂict.

A Plan for Handling Conﬂ ict

I’ll brieﬂ y outline here a better approach for handling

conﬂ ict so that you get a sense of the whole process be-

fore delving into the individual steps and speciﬁ c scenar-

ios in later chapters.

You start by understanding conﬂ ict better. Before we

engage in an unhealthy way, it helps to know what’s at

the root of the disagreement. First, you need to know the

Introduction

xxiv

various sources of conﬂ ict (see chapter 1, “Types of Con-

ﬂ ict”). There are four main types: relationship (a per-

sonal disagreement), task (disagreement over what the

goal is), process (disagreement over the means or pro-

cess for achieving a goal), and status (disagreement over

your standing in a group). These categories will help you

ﬁ gure out what’s actually happening when you get into a

conﬂ ict—even when your ﬁ ght doesn’t neatly ﬁ t into one

bucket.

The second piece of information you need is to un-

derstand your options (see chapter 2, “Your Options

for Handling Conﬂ ict”). In general, there are four from

which to choose when confronting a conﬂ ict. The ﬁ rst,

which is more common than you might think, is to do

nothing. You don’t say anything to your colleague, you

let the comment go, or you simply walk away and go on

as if the conﬂ ict hasn’t happened. The second option is

to address the conﬂ ict, but indirectly. Instead of talking

through what’s going on with your coworker, you might

involve your boss or a third party, or hint at the conﬂ ict

without ever candidly naming it. This option is more

common in cultures such as East Asia, where saving face

is important. The third option is to address the conﬂ ict

directly. This is where the rest of the book focuses—on

preparing for and having a direct conversation with your

counterpart. The ﬁ nal option—and typically your last re-

sort—is to exit the relationship.

The third and ﬁ nal aspect to having a more productive

conﬂ ict is to know what people’s natural tendencies are

when it comes to conﬂ ict. There are generally two types

of people: those who gravitate toward conﬂict and those

Introduction

xxv

who want to take cover under their desks whenever

tensions rise. Avoiders tend to shy away or even hide

from disagreements. Seekers are more eager to engage

in conﬂict when it arises (or even ﬁnd ways to create it).

In chapter 3 (“Recognize Your Natural Tendency”), you’ll

get to know which style you gravitate toward (and tips

for sussing out your counterpart’s tendency) so that you

can make a conscious choice about how to address a

disagreement.

Table I-1 gives you an overview of this foundational

work.

Once you’ve completed this groundwork, it’s time to

put your knowledge into practice. When faced with a

speciﬁc situation—your colleague raises his voice, you’re

battling with your ﬁ nance counterpart over next year’s

budget, your boss is acting like a jerk—start by quickly

taking stock of what you know about your counterpart

TABLE I

Conﬂ ict at a glance

Types of conﬂ ict

(conﬂ ict is over . . .)

Options for

handling Natural tendencies

1. Relationship (personal

issues, such as how you’re

being treated)

2. Task (the goal,

what you’re trying to

achieve)

3. Process (the process,

how work gets done)

4. Status (your standing

in a group or who’s in

charge)

1. Do

nothing.

2. Address

indirectly.

3. Address

directly.

4. Exit the

relationship.

1. Conﬂ ict avoider

 Shies away from

disagreements

 Cares most about

harmony

2. Conﬂ ict seeker

 Eager to engage in

disagreements

 Cares most about

directness and honesty

Introduction

xxvi

(is she a seeker like you, or are you both avoiders?) and

the type of conﬂ ict you’re having (see chapter 4, “Assess

the Situation”). This will give you a better picture of what

you’re up against.

You’ll also need to sort out what your goal is: Do you

want to move your stalled project forward? Preserve the

relationship? Just move on? That will help you make a

smart choice about which of your four options to exer-

cise. If you choose to do nothing or exit the relationship,

this is where your journey ends. You can skip to chapter 8

(“Repair the Relationship”) and focus on how to rebuild

trust and move on. If you prefer to address the conﬂ ict

indirectly, you’ll choose one of the tactics laid out in chap-

ter 4. If you decide to address the conﬂ ict directly, then

you’ll start to prepare for the conversation (see chap-

ter 5, “Get Ready for the Conversation”). This involves

the following eight steps:

1. Check your mindset.

2. See the situation from your counterpart’s

perspective.

3. Consider the larger organizational context.

4. Plan your message.

5. Prepare for multiple scenarios.

6. Pick the right time.

7. Choose the right place.

8. Vent.

Introduction

xxvii

Then you’re ready to sit down with your colleague and

talk through what’s happening (see chapter 6, “Have a

Productive Conversation”). You’ll start by framing the

conversation so that you get off on the right foot. You

want to form a bond with your counterpart by focusing

on where you agree. Then you’ll do three things simulta-

neously: Manage your and your counterpart’s emotions,

listen to your colleague’s perspective, and make your

viewpoint heard. These are all toward the goal of trying

to ﬁ nd a solution to the underlying conﬂ ict.

Ideally in that conversation, or in subsequent ones,

you’ll ﬁ nd a resolution that meets both of your needs

(see chapter 7, “Get to a Resolution and Make a Plan”).

And if you aren’t able to reach a conclusion, you’ll at

least agree on how to move forward.

No matter what sort of end your conﬂict comes to,

you’ll need to ﬁgure out how to repair the relationship

and move on (see chapter 8). Conﬂict can bring up lots

of negative emotions—anger, frustration, annoyance, re-

sentment—and it’s important to clear the air and lay the

groundwork for a strong relationship going forward.

Conﬂict can feel less scary and more manageable when

you approach it methodically. You’ll need to be ﬂexible

and adapt as the situation takes unexpected turns, but

this book will help you develop the basic skills and strat-

egies you need. There are many examples throughout

(real stories disguised and combined) to show you how

others have tackled similar challenges. Of course, noth-

ing ever goes exactly as planned, so the ﬁnal chapter

addresses speciﬁc scenarios, such as what to do when

Introduction

xxviii

you’re dealing with a bully or how to navigate a disagree-

ment with a vendor (see chapter 9, “Navigate Common

Situations” ). When you learn to manage conﬂict, it has

fewer downsides and more beneﬁts, and it boosts your

overall productivity. “If you’re going to be a truly effec-

tive manager, you’re going to have to deal with conﬂict.

Otherwise you’re going to end up ﬁghting with everyone

or simply giving them what they want,” says John Ratey,

a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. By

following the process in this guide, you can reap the ben-

eﬁ ts of conﬂ ict while mitigating its risks. You will also

become more conﬁ dent in proactively addressing dis-

agreements and engaging in difﬁ cult discussions.

SECTION ONE

Preparing for

Conﬂ ict Before

It Happens

CHAPTER 

Types of Conﬂ ict

In the middle of a dispute, when your brain kicks into

overdrive, you might be stuck wondering, Where did this

conversation go wrong? or Why is my coworker so mad?

It might feel as if your colleague is being unreasonable,

that the situation is intractable, or that your relationship

will never recover.

Uncovering what’s truly going on—what’s at the root

of the disagreement—will help you set aside your emo-

tional reaction and begin to solve the problem.

There are generally four types of conﬂ ict: relation-

ship, task, process, and status (see table 1-1).

The common sources of conﬂict are neatly delineated

here, but in reality, disagreements rarely fall into just one

of these categories. More often, there are multiple things

going on and a conﬂ ict may start as one type and expand

into another. We’ll follow the story of a cross-functional

team at TechCorp, a ﬁctional tech company, to illustrate

what these categories look like in the real world.

TABLE 

Types of conﬂ ict

Type of conﬂ ict What it is For example . . . Outcomes if you get it right

Relationship A clash of personalities Your counterpart interrupts and

talks over you in a meeting.

 Better understanding of your

counterpart

 Improved relationship

Task A disagreement over the

intended goal of a task or

project

You and your colleague in the

legal department don’t agree

on how much risk the company

should assume in a partnership

agreement.

 Clearer understanding of the

trade-oﬀ s to be made

 Better results

 Innovation

Process A disagreement over how to

carry out a project or task

You think it’s important to roll out

a new initiative quickly, even if it

means sacriﬁ cing some quality,

while your counterpart believes it

needs to be perfect before it hits

the market.

 Process innovation

 More potential solutions to the

problem

Status A disagreement over who’s

in charge or gets credit for

the work

You and your peer are competing

to run a high-proﬁ le project.

 Clear hierarchy

 Easier coordination of the

work

Types of Conﬂ ict

Relationship

This is what we most often assume is happening when

we get into a conﬂ ict—a clash of personalities.

What it is

A personal disagreement. Sometimes called an interper-

sonal or emotional conﬂict, it’s when one or both of you

feel disrespected or hurt. It includes:

• Snapping at each other in meetings

• Exchanging snarky emails

• Avoiding eye contact in the hallway

• Interrupting, or talking over, a colleague in a

meeting

• Using a condescending tone to indicate your

disagreement

• Arguing over who’s right and who’s wrong

Quite often a relationship conﬂict starts as something

else. A disagreement over a project schedule escalates

to bickering that disrupts a team meeting. Or a differ-

ence of opinion on the company’s strategy devolves into

a heated debate about who’s right and who’s wrong. You

may both have valid points, and good intentions, but

some disagreements turn ugly. Annie McKee describes

it this way: “In a perfect world, we follow the textbook

advice, treat conﬂict logically, behave like adults, and get

on with it. The problem is, we’re not working in a perfect

Preparing for Conﬂ ict Before It Happens

world, and none of us is perfect. We each bring our own

baggage to work every day. And some of our issues—

insecurity, the desire for power and control, habitual vic-

timhood—rear their heads again and again.”

Example

A team of functional leaders at TechCorp all agree that

one of their best-performing products needs a new fea-

ture, but the SVP of product development and the SVP

of engineering can’t agree on the ultimate goal. Their

differing views gradually escalated from lively debate

to a public blowout. Now they trade passive-aggressive

barbs over group emails and interrupt each other in

meetings. Some teammates have become so uncomfort-

able witnessing the interactions that they’ve started de-

clining meetings in which they know both will be pres-

ent. Not only do the SVPs disagree, they can’t believe

that the other person doesn’t see it the same way. It’s no

longer about what’s best for TechCorp and the customer.

For both of them, it’s about being right.

The beneﬁ ts of managing it well

There are typically few beneﬁ ts to relationship conﬂ ict,

says Jeanne Brett. When our egos and sense of pride

get involved, it’s painful, and challenging to manage

effectively.

But even uncomfortable interpersonal conﬂ ict can have

positive outcomes. Jonathan Hughes, an expert on corpo-

rate negotiations and relationship management, points

out that these types of disputes give us the opportunity to

learn more about ourselves and our colleagues. We better

Types of Conﬂ ict

understand each other’s values, working styles, and per-

sonalities and therefore build better relationships, “which

creates a virtuous cycle,” he says. If you’ve established that

you can successfully navigate conﬂict, you’re more likely

to give honest feedback and challenge each other when

necessary.

Task

The most common source of disagreement at work is

task conﬂ ict.

What it is

A dispute over the goal of a task or project or what you’re

trying to achieve. This includes disagreements about:

• The agenda for a staff meeting

• How the success of a new initiative should be de-

ﬁ ned or measured

• Whether the customers or the employees should

come ﬁrst

• How much risk a company should assume when

partnering with other organizations

• Whether to prioritize revenue or customer

satisfaction

“The most common form of task conﬂ ict in organi-

zations is functional,” explains Brett. Marketing, legal,

and ﬁ nance may look at the same problem and see it

completely differently. For example, marketing may lobby

to put the customer ﬁ rst, while legal’s aim is to protect

Preparing for Conﬂ ict Before It Happens

the company from risk, and ﬁ nance is trying to cut costs.

Each may argue that their perspective on how to solve

the problem is more important. “In reality, all those view-

points and each functional way of addressing the problem

are relevant and should be integrated into the solution,”

says Brett.

Example

The functional leaders at TechCorp all agree that they

want the new feature, but they can’t agree on the objec-

tive. Marketing sees it as an opportunity to expand the

company’s market share. Finance is focused on improv-

ing the business’s margins. And the engineers on the

team care about developing something cool that inte-

grates the latest technology. If they can’t agree on what

success means for the new feature, they won’t be able to

move the project forward—or even worse, they’ll each

take it in a separate direction, wasting time and the com-

pany’s resources. The engineers spent all weekend de-

veloping a prototype of the new feature, but the ﬁ nance

managers are worried that it will be too expensive to

produce and the marketing lead isn’t sure users will ap-

preciate the added functionality.

The beneﬁ ts of managing it well

When we have productive discussions about our differ-

ent views of project goals or how we should deﬁ ne suc-

cess, we gain valuable insights, says Hughes. “We live in

a world of ﬁ nite resources, and this type of conversation

is helpful in terms of coming to smart decisions about

which trade-offs to make.” Should the new feature have

Types of Conﬂ ict

less functionality and be more affordable to make? Or is

it important to delight customers so that they stay with

the company longer? At TechCorp, the new feature is

likely to be more robust and useful to the customer pre-

cisely because each of the functions is pushing its own

agenda. The new feature won’t satisfy everyone, but air-

ing each group’s goals is likely to serve up new ideas and

generate productive conversations about what will make

the feature successful—more so than if the team had just

driven toward one person’s objective.

Process

Another common type of conﬂ ict is not about what

you’re doing but how you’re doing it.

What it is

A disagreement over how to carry out a project or task,

the means or process you use to reach your goal. This in-

cludes differences on:

• The best tactic for reaching a quarterly target

• How to implement a new HR policy

• How decisions should be made in a meeting

• How quickly a project should be completed

• Who should be consulted and included as the proj-

ect is carried out

Process disagreements are easily confused with task

conﬂ icts. You think you’re arguing over the outcome

when really you can’t agree on how to make a decision.

Preparing for Conﬂ ict Before It Happens

For example, you might get locked into a battle with a

coworker over the right strategy for a new project when

what you need to settle is not the speciﬁ c tactic but who

gets to make the ﬁ nal call. Or you think the company

should do customer research ﬁ rst and a coworker thinks

it should get a good-enough product out in the market

and see what happens.

Example

At TechCorp, ﬁ nance thinks that the group should come

up with a proposal for the new feature that everyone can

agree on, but marketing is lobbying to take a vote and

let the majority rule. Marketing is also at odds with the

engineers because they think they should conduct cus-

tomer focus groups throughout the course of develop-

ment, starting as soon as possible, while the engineers

think they should wait until they have an internally ap-

proved prototype. None of the three functions agrees on

the timeline for completing the project—in time for an

important trade show or within the ﬁ scal year.

The beneﬁ ts of managing it well

Disagreements over how to get something done can help

bring about process improvements or unearth hidden

beneﬁ ts. A good way to come up with several viable op-

tions, Hughes suggests, is to ask, “What other ways can

we imagine meeting our goals?” and then allow your

team to offer answers. “People tend to frame things in an

unnecessary binary fashion: should we do this or that,

but there’s almost always a third or fourth way as well,”

he says. It’s natural for ﬁ nance to lobby for production

Types of Conﬂ ict

schedules that align with ﬁ scal year milestones. But dis-

cussing the timing with the entire group reveals a criti-

cal trade show date, reminds the group of key ﬁ scal-year

dates, and allows everyone to share their own team’s

schedule and resource constraints. As with task conﬂ ict,

process conﬂ ict can improve results by drawing on the

expertise of the whole group.

Status

A less common—but still problematic—source of con-

ﬂ ict is when people disagree over their standing within

a group.

What it is

A disagreement over who’s in charge or who deserves

credit for the work. For example, you think you should

be leading an initiative, while your worker thinks he

should. It can also include:

• Jockeying for leadership, especially in a team with-

out a formal or designated leader

• Competing to run a high-proﬁ le project

• Arguing over or dominating shared resources

• Competing for status symbols, such as the corner

ofﬁ ce, the latest technology, or having an adminis-

trative assistant

Example

The SVP of engineering at TechCorp and the SVP of new

product development are going head to head over which

Preparing for Conﬂ ict Before It Happens

one of them should lead the group that’s designing the

new feature. In an effort to gain an advantage in this

horse race, when the senior leaders congratulate the

team on the work so far, the SVP of engineering credits

the long hours his group put in, while the SVP of new

product development claims it was her team’s brain-

storming sessions and market research that led to the

concept for the snazzy new feature.

The beneﬁ ts of managing it well

When a status conﬂ ict is resolved, there’s clarity for the

team and anyone working with them. “A clear status hi-

erarchy is efﬁ cient in that everyone knows his or her role

and responsibility,” says Brett. This makes it easier to co-

ordinate work and get things done smoothly. “In stable

social hierarchies, lower-status individuals defer to those

with higher status, and higher-status individuals look

out for the welfare of lower-status ones. At least that is

how it is supposed to work,” she says.

It bears repeating that it’s rare to have a conﬂ ict that

ﬁ ts neatly into just one of these categories. Often, as the

TechCorp example shows, disagreements have elements

of all four, and many that start as another type end up

as relationship conﬂ icts. Separating out each type cuts

through the noise of the conﬂ ict to what’s really at hand.

Instead of a morass of disagreements, you have an or-

ganized list of issues to resolve. “Finding the root causes

helps you get into problem-solving mode,” says Hughes.

“It doesn’t automatically solve everything. It’s not like

Types of Conﬂ ict

the heavens open and the angels sing and the conﬂ ict is

over. But it does make it easier to resolve.”

No matter what kind of conﬂ ict you’re having—or if

your conﬂ ict is a mess of all four types—you aren’t stuck.

You have options for moving forward.

CHAPTER 

Your Options for

Handling Conﬂ ict

Some people might tell you that the only way to man-

age work disagreements is to dive right in and straighten

things out. This isn’t true. While dealing with the con-

ﬂ ict directly can be the most effective route, it isn’t the

only one.

In this chapter I explain your four options: Do noth-

ing, address it indirectly, address it directly, and exit the

relationship (see table 4-2 in chapter 4, “Assess the Situ-

ation,” for an overview of these options).

Do Nothing

When you choose to do nothing, you don’t say anything

to your colleague, you let the comment go, or you simply

walk away and carry on as if the conﬂ ict didn’t happen.

Instead of acting on any feelings or impulses you have

about a disagreement, you swallow them and move on.

This isn’t a cop-out—it’s a seemingly easy and low-effort

Preparing for Conﬂ ict Before It Happens

option for managing conﬂict. “Most people tend toward

loyalty,” says Brian Uzzi, a leadership professor. “That’s be-

cause it’s easier to lower your expectations than deal with

the real issues at hand.” To be clear, this isn’t taking your

bat and ball and going home or storming off. This is sim-

ply keeping an issue to yourself rather than raising it.

We do this all the time, often without realizing it. “We

put up with an awful lot on a day-to-day basis. We lump

conﬂict all the time without consciously making a deci-

sion to do so,” says Jeanne Brett. For many conﬂ icts, it’s

a perfectly good approach. It can be a smart move, espe-

cially if the risks of addressing the issue feel greater than

the potential rewards. “There are certain discussions

you’re just better off not having at all, and knowing when

to let it go is just as critical as knowing when to engage,”

she says. (For more on making that call, see chapter 4,

“Assess the Situation.”)

It may not be worth having the conversation if you

don’t think it’s going to go anywhere. “If your colleague

is stuck in her ways and has never demonstrated a will-

ingness to concede, what do you gain by pushing her yet

again? If the damage is already done—say the project

was defunded last week and you’re just ﬁnding out about

it—it’s probably better to forget about it and move on,”

says Brett.

The risk in selecting this option is that your resolve

may not stick. The issue may not go away, so your feel-

ings about it may come out sideways as you blow up at

your colleague about an unrelated matter. Or your col-

league’s behavior may continue or worsen because he is

unaware of the problem.

Your Options for Handling Conﬂ ict

Note that this option and the “address it indirectly”

option are different than avoiding conﬂ ict altogether.

Conﬂ ict avoidance is a natural tendency to steer away

from conﬂ ict whenever possible (see chapter 3, “Rec-

ognize Your Natural Tendency”). These are active, con-

scious decisions you make to handle a situation. If you

tend to avoid conﬂ ict, check yourself if you ﬁ nd that you

gravitate toward these two options.

Use when . . .

• You don’t have the energy or time to invest in

preparing for and having a conversation

• You suspect the other person is unwilling to have a

constructive conversation

• You have little or no power, particularly in conﬂ icts

with people above you

• You won’t beat yourself up or stew about it

Keep in mind that this option . . .

• Requires little work on your part, but it can be

frustrating to dismiss your feelings

• Keeps the relationship stable, assuming you can

both truly move on

• Won’t work if you’re unable to put it behind you

and you risk having an outburst later or acting

passive-aggressively toward your counterpart

• May cause your work to suffer if you continue to

feel bad

Preparing for Conﬂ ict Before It Happens

• Can reinforce bad behavior—if your counterpart

got away with it once, she might try again

What it looks like in practice

Clara, a project manager, was helping Lisa, a product

manager, develop a launch schedule for testing a new

product line, and she thought that Lisa was being overly

optimistic. She tried to point out that Lisa’s dates weren’t

realistic, but Lisa wouldn’t listen. “I was new, and while

her time frame seemed aggressive to me, I couldn’t be

sure,” Clara says. “Plus she isn’t the warmest person,

and she made it clear she wasn’t really open to my feed-

back.” When the plan went to the wider team, things

blew up. The production manager couldn’t believe that

Clara thought her team would drop everything to meet

her dates. But Lisa had already shared the schedule with

the head of marketing, who had announced the launch

date in the market. When the team discussed the sched-

ule, Lisa never once explained that Clara had a differ-

ence of opinion and, in fact, implied that the dates were

Clara’s work.

“I was livid,” explains Clara, “but I didn’t want to get

into a ﬁ ght in front of our bosses.” She later explained

the situation to her manager but decided not to talk with

Lisa about it. “She didn’t strike me as the kind of per-

son who would be interested in hashing it out, and this

wasn’t the last time we’d have to work together,” she says.

“I didn’t see what good would come of it, other than cre-

ating more tension.” Instead, she put it behind her and

continued to work with Lisa. Though they never directly

Your Options for Handling Conﬂ ict

discussed the issue, Clara says that Lisa was more open

to her input on schedules in the future.

Address It Indirectly: Skirt the Issue

If you decide to try to change the situation by addressing

it, there are two ways to do that. The ﬁ rst is to confront

someone indirectly.

Indirect confrontation is when you choose to circle

around an issue rather than naming it and addressing

it together. Maybe you appeal to someone else who can

talk to your counterpart (say, your boss or a coworker

who knows the person better), or you talk about the situ-

ation without ever naming the issue. To those in certain

cultures that tend to address conﬂ ict directly, this may

sound backhanded and completely ineffective. But in

some places, particularly those where saving face is im-

portant, this is the approach of choice. “In many Asian

cultures, group harmony is incredibly important. It’s not

appropriate to say, ‘We have a disagreement,’” says Erin

Meyer, author of The Culture Map: Breaking Through

the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business. “If you have

a conﬂ ict with someone on a Japanese team, for exam-

ple, you would not sit down and talk it through.”

Brett explains that one tactic is to use a story or a

metaphor. For example, if you’re upset about a colleague

who is constantly interrupting you, you might tell a story

about an employee you previously managed who strug-

gled to listen. The moral of the story—that listening is

a valuable but tough-to-learn skill—may prompt your

counterpart to reﬂ ect on her own behavior. “You see this

Preparing for Conﬂ ict Before It Happens

all the time in China and other Asian countries. They are

respecting the other party to understand the problem

and do something about it rather than telling them what

to do,” says Brett.

Another way to indirectly address a conﬂ ict is to get a

third party involved. “In some African cultures, when you

have a conﬂ ict, you work through a friend. That person

works it out for you so that you never have a direct con-

frontation,” says Meyer. You might go to your boss and

explain that your interrupting colleague is preventing

you from conducting a successful meeting. In some cul-

tures it may be clear that you expect that she will talk to

your coworker. In others, you may need to ask. Similarly,

if you and another team member don’t agree on how to

spend money in your shared budget, you might ask your

boss to make the decision so that neither of you is seen as

losing. Instead, you’re just carrying out your manager’s

orders. Again, in Western cultures, this might be frowned

upon because you may be seen as giving away your power

or failing to step up to the plate, but in other places, this

is an effective way to handle the disagreement.

This option has several risks. If your indirect approach

is too indirect, your counterpart may completely miss

the message you’re trying to send and may not change,

or he may just think that “someone else” really messed

up. Another risk is that your counterpart hears that you

were reaching out to other people about his behavior and

may resent that you went around him rather than speak-

ing with him about it ﬁ rst. Lastly, if your counterpart is

from a more direct culture, he may not respect what he

perceives to be a passive approach.

Your Options for Handling Conﬂ ict

Remember that this option and the “do nothing”

option are different than avoiding conﬂict altogether.

Steering away from conﬂ ict is not the same as making a

conscious choice to address it indirectly. Watch out if you

tend to avoid conﬂ ict and ﬁ nd yourself exercising this

option regularly.

Use when . . .

• It’s important in your culture to save face and not

embarrass people

• You work in a place (ofﬁ ce or country) where

direct confrontation is inappropriate

• You think the other person will be more willing to

take feedback from someone else—either someone

more powerful than you, such as a boss, or some-

one he trusts, such as a close conﬁ dant

Keep in mind that this option . . .

• May not work in Western cultures, where the

expectation is generally to speak directly with

someone when you have a problem

• Can backﬁ re if your counterpart ﬁ nds out about

your behind-the-scenes work and is unhappy

about it

• May fail if your counterpart doesn’t understand

your story or metaphor

What it looks like in practice

Carlos worked as an estimator for a large contractor com-

pany, and his new boss, Peter, was a classic micromanager.

Preparing for Conﬂ ict Before It Happens

“He was very operations focused and wanted to know

what I was doing all the time,” says Carlos. “I was con-

stantly getting emails from him asking about details

on my projects that he didn’t need to know.” Carlos was

afraid that if he told Peter he was micro managing him,

Peter would get worse, not trusting that Carlos would

do the work the way Peter wanted. “I was good at my

job. I just needed him to back off some,” explains Carlos.

He decided to approach the conversation by talking to

Peter about one of his own direct reports, Vince. “I told

him that since Vince was new, he probably needed some

closer managing, but that I really saw our job as helping

these younger people to learn the job on their own and

empower them as much as possible,” he says. Peter was a

bit hesitant and tried to argue that some people needed

to be micromanaged. The two then got into a discussion

about who needed closer supervision and who didn’t.

Without addressing the issue directly, Carlos was able

to make the case that he didn’t need Peter always look-

ing over his shoulder. And it worked. Peter still managed

Carlos more closely than Carlos preferred, but the con-

versation seemed to encourage Peter to give Carlos a lon-

ger leash.

Address It Directly:

Confront the Issue

You can also try to change the situation by explicitly ad-

dressing it. A direct confrontation is when you talk to the

other person—either in the moment the conﬂ ict arises

or at a later time. Generally this involves explaining your

Your Options for Handling Conﬂ ict

side of the conﬂ ict, listening to the other person’s per-

spective, and then, ideally, agreeing on a resolution.

For those in more assertive cultures such as the United

States, this can be an effective option, and it’s the one I

focus on for most of this book. Meyer also points to other

countries, such as France, Russia, and Spain, where it’s

acceptable to have “open, vigorous, strong” disagreeme-

nts. Some organizational cultures are also more prone to

addressing conﬂ ict directly, says Brett. The ﬁ nancial in-

dustry, for example, has a reputation for people openly

disagreeing, sometimes in seemingly harsh ways.

This can be a risky option if it’s not handled well be-

cause it might heighten the conﬂict rather than defuse

it. That’s why the majority of this book is dedicated to

showing you how to prepare for the conversation, engage

productively, and reach a resolution.

Use when . . .

• You worry that there will be lingering resentment

if you don’t clear the air

• You’ve tried to do nothing or indirectly address it

and the problem persists

• You previously had a positive relationship with the

person and you want to get it back on track

Keep in mind that this option . . .

• Can be good for a relationship—going through dif-

ﬁ cult experiences together can make your connec-

tion stronger and your relationship more resilient

Preparing for Conﬂ ict Before It Happens

• Allows you to voice your opinion or feelings, if

that’s important to you

• Helps you develop a better understanding of your-

self and your counterpart

• Can improve your work if you can incorporate

others’ views and opinions

• Could earn you a reputation as aggressive or com-

bative if you do it too often (or not well)

What it looks like in practice

A close work friend of Aparna’s pulled her aside to

tell her that another coworker of theirs, Zia, had been

spreading rumors that Aparna was looking for a new

job. Aparna knew that Zia was competitive with her—

their jobs were closely related—and that in Zia’s ideal

world, she would take over several of Aparna’s projects.

But Aparna was not on the job market. “It was absurd. I

hadn’t had one networking conversation, and I’d barely

updated my résumé in years,” she says. She and Zia had

small disagreements in the past over what direction to

take particular projects, but they’d always been able to

move past them. “I always thought we were healthy com-

petitors. We made each other work harder.”

Worried that Zia’s rumors would put her position at

risk, especially if her boss heard them, she decided to

talk with Zia directly. She asked Zia out for coffee and

explained what she heard and asked for her perspective

on it. At ﬁ rst Zia denied that she had said anything to

anyone, but she eventually conceded that she’d heard

Your Options for Handling Conﬂ ict

something about Aparna talking with a competitor and

she may have mentioned it to a few people. Aparna ex-

plained that that was not the case and asked Zia to stop.

She agreed, and while they continued to compete on oc-

casion, Aparna didn’t hear news of Zia talking behind

her back again.

Exit: Get Out of the Situation Entirely

Your ﬁnal option is to extricate yourself from the situ-

ation by either getting reassigned to another project,

ﬁnding a new boss, or leaving the company. This is usu-

ally a last resort. “You can’t always leave a relationship,

especially at work,” Uzzi says. When you’re disagreeing

with a boss or someone on your team, you may just be

stuck with that person, unless you’re willing to ﬁnd an-

other job. But if the conﬂict is with someone in another

department or a person outside your company, such as a

vendor, you may be able to reduce your contact.

Exiting doesn’t mean that you end the relationship by

making a dramatic scene. Instead, look for a way to stop

interacting with that person. If it’s a client with whom

you have an ongoing conﬂ ict, you may explain the situ-

ation to your supervisor and propose that one of your

equally qualiﬁ ed colleagues replaces you on the account.

If it’s someone you work with in the ﬁ nance department,

you can begin to build a relationship with someone else

on that team so that you have an alternative contact.

If your boss is the problem, you might apply to jobs in

other departments; you can start by building a broader

network in the organization or connecting with people

on teams you may want to join.

Preparing for Conﬂ ict Before It Happens

This sounds easier said than done, and often it is.

Exiting is a risky option because it’s not something you

can typically do overnight or even in a week’s time. More

likely it’s something you’ll build toward slowly, while you

dust off your résumé, expand your network, and have

conversations with people who may be able to support

you in making the move.

Brett says that it’s usually worth trying the other three

options before ending things completely. But there are

situations in which the conﬂ ict is so bad and seemingly

intractable that severing the relationship is the best

option.

Use when . . .

• You’re dealing with someone from another depart-

ment or outside your company where your jobs

aren’t interdependent

• You can easily ﬁ nd another job somewhere else

• You’ve tried other options and nothing has worked

Keep in mind that this option . . .

• May give you a sense of relief because it gives you a

clean break

• Can protect you from further time wasted, stress,

and discomfort

• Is likely to take a lot of work from you (includ-

ing potentially difﬁ cult conversations) to change

departments, get reassigned, or leave your job

Your Options for Handling Conﬂ ict

• May hurt other relationships as you sever ties with

this person

• Can have negative repercussions if you leave a

project and then you’re later blamed for its failure

because you abandoned the team or client

• May make you seem as though you’re difﬁ cult to

work with

What it looks like in practice

When the 50-person department that Monique worked

in was restructured, she wasn’t happy with her new di-

rect supervisor, Samir. “He didn’t know how to man-

age. He was patronizing. He didn’t seem interested in

my contributions. And it wasn’t clear what he wanted

me to be doing,” she explains. To make matters worse,

she didn’t believe in the direction Samir was taking the

department, a unit that she had spent years helping to

build. She repeatedly tried to get clearer directions from

him, but the conversations quickly disintegrated, leaving

Monique frustrated and Samir confused. “It felt near im-

possible to have a constructive conversation with him,”

she says.

After six months of pulling her hair out, Monique

went to the head of HR, with whom she had a positive

relationship. She didn’t want to complain openly for fear

that it would get back to her boss. “That would’ve felt like

tattle telling. Instead, I explained to her that as Samir’s

responsibilities were expanding, he probably had more

than enough to do,” she says. She suggested that maybe

Preparing for Conﬂ ict Before It Happens

she could report to a different manager. “She thought

it was an interesting idea,” she says. A couple of weeks

went by, and during one of her one-on-one meetings

with Samir, he proposed the new reporting structure and

asked how she felt about it. Her response, “Whatever’s

best for the team, I’m willing to do.” Monique was very

happy with her new manager and felt she had done the

best she could do under the circumstances. “If things

hadn’t changed, I would’ve left the company,” she says.

When Your Counterpart

Takes the Lead

Sometimes you’re not the one who gets to decide which

option to pursue. Your counterpart may ask to be taken

off your project. Or a colleague may start yelling at you in

the hallway after a meeting. “If it’s the other party who’s

having the problem, you may not be able to completely

avoid having the conversation,” says Brett. If you’re put

on the spot, try to delay the conversation for when you’re

in a better frame of mind so that you can make a smart

choice about the option that will work best. (See chap-

ter 4 for more on walking away from a conﬂict.)

Here are a few examples of language you could use to

put off a ﬁ ght with someone who’s upset:

• “I understand you want to discuss this, but now

isn’t the best time. Can we schedule something at a

later date so that we can talk it through?”

• “I can see you’re really upset about this. Can we

talk about this when we’re both calmer?”

Your Options for Handling Conﬂ ict

• “I’m not ready to have this conversation right now.

I’m going to step outside to clear my head, and

then perhaps we can meet tomorrow to talk

about this.”

If your counterpart makes the ﬁ rst move, then you

must choose how to react. Your options are the same, but

it would be hard for you to do nothing, for example, if

he’s requested that you sit down and talk about an issue.

And you certainly won’t need to exercise your right to

exit if he’s already done so.

Whether you’re choosing an approach or whether your

counterpart initiates a difﬁ cult conversation, there’s work

for you to do. You’ll have to deal with your anger or hurt

if you elect to do nothing, ﬁ nagle a new position or job if

you decide to exit the relationship, make a careful plan if

you decide to address it indirectly, or prepare for a difﬁ -

cult conversation if you decide to address it directly. That

work will be easier if you understand the two general ap-

proaches to conﬂ ict and which one you tend to favor.

CHAPTER 

Recognize Your

Natural Tendency

There are generally two types of people: those who avoid

conﬂ ict and those who seek it. Neither style is better or

worse, so instead of beating yourself up for being resis-

tant to conﬂict or being drawn to it, accept that you have

a default approach, says Amy Jen Su, an executive coach.

Knowing which style is your (and eventually your coun-

terpart’s) natural tendency allows you to make smart

choices about how to address the conﬂict and, if you de-

cide to confront it, have a constructive conversation.

Of course, it’s rare for a person to avoid conﬂict or seek

it out all of the time. It’s more likely that you adjust your

style based on the context (are you at home or at work?);

whom you’re having the conﬂict with (your boss or your

direct report?); and other things going on (is the organi-

zation under extensive scrutiny from investors; are you

feeling particularly stressed-out, or did you just return

Preparing for Conﬂ ict Before It Happens

from a rejuvenating vacation?). You might be willing to

tell your sister that she’s out of line, but you’d probably

tone down a similar comment when you’re directing it

at a colleague. “This may be because we’re more mind-

ful with some audiences than others. With a customer

you’re trying to sell to, you might be more avoidant [of

conﬂict]. With a peer you’ve worked with for years, you

might be a seeker,” says Jen Su.

Still, knowing which style you gravitate toward will

help you make a conscious choice about how to address

a disagreement. If you’re an avoider, for example, your

instinct may be to do nothing. But knowing that’s your

natural tendency can help you overcome your resistance

to addressing issues. See table 3-1 for an overview of the

characteristics of each. The following sections offer more

detail to help you identify your most common approach.

Conﬂ ict Avoiders

Conﬂ ict avoiders are generally people who value har-

mony in the workplace. When they sense a disagree-

TABLE 

Conﬂ ict styles at a glance

Avoiders Seekers

 Shy away from disagreements.

 Value harmony and positive

relationships.

 Often try to placate people or

change the topic.

 Don’t want to hurt others’ feelings.

 Don’t want to disrupt team

dynamics.

 Are eager to engage in

disagreements.

 Care most about directness and

honesty.

 Strongly advocate for their own

perspective.

 Lose patience when people aren’t

being direct or honest.

 Don’t mind ruﬄ ing feathers.

Recognize Your Natural Tendency

ment brewing, they will often try to placate the other

person or change the topic. These aren’t passive be-

haviors, but active things they do to prevent conﬂ ict

from becoming an issue. They believe having positive

relationships with their colleagues is extremely impor-

tant and are often seen as easy to get along with. Liane

Davey describes these people this way: “They worry

that disagreeing might hurt someone’s feelings or dis-

rupt harmonious team dynamics. They fret that their

perspective isn’t as valid as someone else’s, so they

hold back.”

This strategy is meant to make things easier, but it

can take a toll. Conﬂ ict avoiders try to be nice and of-

ten avoid contentious topics. But “[these people] end

up spending an inordinate amount of time talking to

themselves or others—complaining, feeling frustrated,

ruminating on something that already happened, or an-

ticipating something that might happen,” says Jen Su.

This avoidance can have physical manifestations as well.

Some of Jen Su’s more conﬂ ict-avoidant clients have ex-

perienced headaches, back pain, and weight gain.

If you’re a conﬂ ict avoider, here are some examples of

how you might think:

“My colleague interrupted me again. We’re supposed

to be leading this effort together, and this is his way

of showing he’s the boss. He just makes me look bad

in front of the team. I’ve been replaying it in my mind

over and over again.”

“Someone has to tell my direct report that her bad

attitude is affecting the rest of the team, but I’m

Preparing for Conﬂ ict Before It Happens

dreading it. I’ve been thinking about it all day and

haven’t been able to get anything done.”

“I know what they’re going to say—that we can’t have

more resources due to budget constraints. This gives

me such a knot in my stomach. I’ll probably just give

up on asking for this investment.”

“If I can just keep a smile on my face at the meeting,

people will understand that I don’t want to talk about

the bugs that came up last week.”

Conﬂ ict Seekers

Conversely, conﬂ ict seekers will seize on brewing dis-

putes and amplify them, often strongly advocating for

their perspective. They don’t have patience when they

think people aren’t being direct or honest, and they’re

willing to rufﬂ e a few feathers. The tendency to dive into

conﬂ ict may feed upon itself because of a neurochemical

process, as Judith E. Glaser, a communications expert,

explains: “When you argue and win, your brain ﬂ oods

with different hormones—adrenaline and dopamine—

which make you feel good, dominant, even invincible.

It’s a feeling any of us would want to replicate. So the

next time we’re in a tense situation, we ﬁ ght again.”

This attraction to conﬂ ict also takes a toll, but often

on others. “Seekers are extremely good at ﬁ ghting for

their point of view (which may or may not be right), yet

they are completely unaware of the dampening effect

their behavior has on the people around them. If one

person is getting high off his dominance, others are be-

ing drummed into submission,” says Glaser.

Recognize Your Natural Tendency

Although it may not negatively affect them in the mo-

ment, their effectiveness as leaders and colleagues suf-

fers. Though they “win” the argument, conﬂ ict seekers

may earn the reputation of being difﬁ cult to work with,

quick to snap, or even mean. People may avoid working

with them or even describe them as bullies.

If you’re a conﬂ ict seeker, here are some examples of

how you might think:

“I can tell that many of them don’t agree that we need

to go with this vendor. But I know this is the right

choice, even if they don’t realize it yet.”

“Why can’t we get into this right now? Everyone

should just lay out what they think the new strategy

should be, and then we’ll choose the best option. Why

are we being so nice?”

“I couldn’t believe my direct report had the nerve

to question the deadline I laid out for the team.

I was sure to shut her down and copied the others

so that they all know in the future not to cross

that line.”

“Sal’s recommendation on this hiring issue is just

plain stupid. I owed it to him to tell him when he

tried to get me on board with the new policy.”

Identify Yourself

After reading the descriptions above, you may immedi-

ately recognize yourself as an avoider or a seeker. If it’s

not clear to you, taking the time to get to know yourself

Preparing for Conﬂ ict Before It Happens

better is worthwhile. If a conﬂict erupts with your boss,

you’re not going to run home to take a personality test or

soul search about your personal relationship to conﬂict.

You won’t have time for that. Knowing your preferred ap-

proach before you get into a heated debate can help you

be better prepared for a discussion when the time comes.

To better understand what your natural tendency is,

look at the many factors that contribute to your default

approach:

• Past experience: “Our relationship to conﬂ ict

is anchored in a history of habit,” says Jen Su. If

you were shamed or criticized during a conﬂict

early in your career, you might choose safety and

harmony over speaking up, she says. Or perhaps

your ﬁ rst mentor enjoyed sparring with cowork-

ers, demonstrating that there was nothing to fear.

Maybe you’re from a large family, who thrived on

lively dinner table debates, so you frequently adopt

the role of devil’s advocate to spark heated team

discussions.

• Cultural norms: Brett makes it clear: “You con-

front based on the norm in your culture.” As dis-

cussed in the previous chapter, in East Asian cul-

tures, for example, it’s common to use an indirect

approach. Others are typically more direct, such as

Latin American cultures. This doesn’t mean that

every Chinese manager is a conﬂ ict avoider or that

every Mexican manager is a conﬂ ict seeker; it’s just

another factor.

Recognize Your Natural Tendency

• Oﬃ ce context: Every workplace has its own set of

norms, and some teams have their own separate

set of rules as well. In some ofﬁces, it’s frowned

upon to disagree openly; you’re expected to resolve

disagreements in private meetings or through

email. In other ofﬁces, it’s common to have a more

open airing of conﬂict.

• Gender norms: There’s a stereotype that most

women are conﬂict avoiders and most men are

conﬂict seekers, which stems from the view that

women are more nurturing and care more about

what others think, say Amy Jen Su and her coau-

thor Muriel Maignan Wilkins in their book, Own

the Room: Discover Your Signature Voice to Master

Your Leadership Presence. But in practice this isn’t

necessarily true. Some women may opt to take

less direct approaches to conﬂ ict because they

know they will be penalized for being assertive. In

fact, researchers at Harvard Business School and

Babson College have shown that when women

negotiate, people (both men and women) are less

likely to want to work with them. So some women

may lean toward being avoiders not because it’s

their natural tendency but because they know the

social costs of being a conﬂ ict seeker are higher

for them.

If you’re still not sure which camp you fall into, here

are several tips for unearthing your preference.

Preparing for Conﬂ ict Before It Happens

Develop healthy self-awareness

Ask yourself some of the following questions about your

current and previous relationship with conﬂ ict.

• Were you always more of a ﬁ ghter? Or did you

tend to accommodate others?

• Look back over particular moments of conﬂ ict

early in your life or career—were you rewarded or

punished for your approach?

• When you think about conﬂ ict now, do you

get a pit in your stomach and feel like ﬂ eeing?

• Or does your heart race and you feel the urge to

jump in?

• The last time tensions got high with someone at

work or at home, how did you react?

• When you were growing up, how was conﬂ ict

handled in your family?

• Do you come from a culture where conﬂ ict is

handled more directly or one where it’s frowned

upon?

• What is the norm in your organization? In your

unit? On your team? Do you adopt the typical

approach or play against type?

Look for patterns in your answers. Perhaps you had

always been a seeker until you were criticized as be-

ing “too aggressive” in an early performance review. Or

Recognize Your Natural Tendency

maybe you notice that you tend to avoid conﬂ ict unless

the issue is something you really care about, such as your

team. You may be able to understand your tendency just

by answering these questions. But it’s also helpful to get

more input.

Ask for feedback

It’s tough to see ourselves for who we really are, so ask

others to reality check your observations. Get feedback

from trusted colleagues, a caring mentor, or even your

spouse. Inquire speciﬁ cally about conﬂ ict situations: “Do

you see me as someone who backs away from disagree-

ment? Or do I enjoy digging into an argument?” Jen Su

warns that conﬂ ict seekers need to say explicitly that

they want genuine and honest input. “More-aggressive

people tend not to get the tough feedback they need be-

cause their colleagues are often afraid of them and don’t

want to trigger them.” It’s important, therefore, to ask

someone who you know will be candid with you, perhaps

someone who has little to lose in telling you the truth.

Take an assessment

Many of the psychometric tests that people use in the

workplace, such as Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI),

help you better understand how you handle conﬂict.

However, there’s one tool that’s focused speciﬁ cally on

understanding your conﬂ ict style: the Thomas-Kilmann

Conﬂict Mode Instrument (TKI). The tool categorizes

you as having one of ﬁve conﬂict-handling styles—

avoiding, accommodating, compromising, collaborating,

Preparing for Conﬂ ict Before It Happens

or competing—based on your answers to several ques-

tions. It’s not time intensive (it usually takes about 15

minutes to complete), but there is a fee.

Reﬂ ecting on your approach is only half the battle; you

also need to get a sense of how your counterpart prefers

to approach disagreements before you can have a pro-

ductive conﬂ ict.

SECTION TWO

Managing a

Conﬂ ict

CHAPTER 

Assess the

Situation

When you’re faced with a speciﬁc situation, there are ﬁve

things to do to assess the scenario at hand before tak-

ing action—understand your counterpart; identify the

type of conﬂict you’re facing; consider the organizational

context; determine your goal; and, ﬁnally, pick one of

the four options you’ll take to deal with this particular

situation.

The ﬁ rst time you analyze a conﬂ ict using these ﬁ ve

steps it will take some time, but eventually the analysis

will get easier. The goal is to be able to quickly do these

steps in your head whenever a disagreement arises.

Understand Your Counterpart

First, consider whom you’re dealing with. Is he a conﬂ ict

seeker or avoider? How does he typically communicate

and how does he prefer to be communicated with? Is

Managing a Conﬂ ict

he more of a straight shooter who says things like they

are or does he tend to beat around the bush? If you fre-

quently work with the person you’re in conﬂict with, you

may already be familiar with his style. If you rarely in-

teract with the person, you’ll have to do some digging.

“More and more we’re working with people whom we

don’t have the luxury of getting that kind of intelligence

on,” says Amy Jen Su. It may be that you’re ﬁghting with

an overseas colleague whom you see in person only at

annual meetings, or your conﬂict is with a manager in a

different department who sits in another building. “It’s

better to know something about the person rather than

ﬁghting in a vacuum,” Jen Su says. She suggests that you

get whatever information is available. Here’s how.

Look for patterns

Whether or not you know your counterpart well, play

the role of observer. How does she handle a tense dis-

cussion in a meeting? What’s the look on her face when

other people are disagreeing? Does she like people to cut

to the chase and lay out just the facts or does she want

the complete picture with every gory detail? What have

you observed about her communication style? Look for

patterns in how she communicates and clues in her be-

havior. “People who are volatile and confrontational, for

example, tend to be that way in a lot of different situa-

tions,” says Brett. Ideally you’ll observe the person over

time in multiple scenarios. That may not be possible, so

take what you can get. Just keep in mind that the fewer

instances you see, the less likely you’ll be able to deduce

an accurate pattern.

Assess the Situation

Get input from others

In addition to examining your counterpart’s behavior,

you might ask a colleague or two for input. Don’t go

around grilling others about him, but ask people to con-

ﬁ rm or deny your observations. Say something like, “I

noticed Jim ﬂ ew off the handle in that meeting. Is that

typical?” or “I saw Katerina avoid engaging with Tomas

when he questioned whether her ﬁ gures were right. Did

you see the same thing?” You can also ask more direct

questions: “Can you tell me how this person typically

navigates conﬂ ict?” Obviously, you have to trust the per-

son you’re asking—you don’t want your colleague to ﬁ nd

out you’re snooping on him.

Use this same approach to ﬁ gure out cultural and of-

ﬁ ce norms. If you’re dealing with a vendor based in a dif-

ferent country, for example, or a colleague who’s located

halfway around the world, ask someone who knows that

person or is familiar with the culture or ofﬁ ce environ-

ment how conﬂ ict is typically handled. Erin Meyer sug-

gests saying something along these lines: “Here’s how I

would deal with this in my culture. How would you typi-

cally approach it?” She also recommends that you seek

out “cultural bridges,” people who work in your culture

and in your counterpart’s. These are often ex-pats who’ve

relocated to another ofﬁ ce or people based out of head-

quarters who have to work across multiple locations.

Ask directly

It’s not always advisable to come out and ask: “How do

you like to address conﬂ ict?” That can be awkward—few

Managing a Conﬂ ict

people will be prepared to answer this question. In-

stead, share your own preferences as a way to start the

conversation: “You might have noticed that I am more

of a conﬂ ict seeker. I don’t shy away from arguments,

and I tend to get worked up quickly.” You could also

share tactful observations about what you’ve noticed

about your counterpart. “Based on how you responded

to Corinne’s questioning in this morning’s meeting, it

seems as if you prefer to steer away from conﬂ ict. Is that

right?”

You’re trying to learn what someone’s style is, not

judge it. Instead of saying “We’ve got a problem here be-

cause it seems as if you don’t know how to discuss con-

ﬂ ict,” you might ask, “What do you do in your culture

when people disagree?” It’s better to ask questions than

make statements, and use phrases that ask for conﬁ rma-

tion, such as “Correct me if I’m wrong . . .” or “Do I have

this right?” Meyer points out that there’s nothing wrong

with showing curiosity. “People always like to be asked

about themselves,” she says.

Once you learn more about the culture, use that

knowledge to help you understand your situation better.

Why did he speak to me like that? What did he mean? “If

you’re dealing with someone from the Netherlands and

he speaks to you in a really direct way,” says Meyer, “you

can interpret that behavior differently than if someone

from China was short with you.” Was the person really

being rude? Was he intentionally being vague and trying

to hide something? Or is there a cultural reason for him

to speak or behave like that?

Assess the Situation

If you come up empty-handed

If your digging doesn’t turn up adequate information, all

is not lost. Although it helps, having this information is

not a prerequisite to a productive conversation. Instead,

prepare by playing out a few scenarios. What if she’s a

conﬂict seeker and gets mad at me? What if he yells?

What if she’s an avoider and gets upset? Or tries to leave

the room?

You may even want to role-play with another co-

worker. If you do, Jen Su suggests you play your counter-

part and your coworker acts as you. That will help you

take your counterpart’s perspective and ask yourself,

How would I want that person to interact with me?

This will also allow you to better understand how your

counter part sees you.

How Your Styles Work Together

Now that you have a sense of your approach to con-

ﬂ ict and have gleaned some insights into your counter-

part’s preferences, how will your styles interact? If

you’re both seekers, can you expect an all-out brawl?

If you’re both avoiders, should you forget the idea of di-

rectly addressing the conﬂ ict? See table 4-1 to get a sense

of what typically happens between each of the types and

how you might manage it.

Identify the Type of Conﬂ ict

Next, think about what’s causing the conﬂict. Review

the four types of conﬂict I identiﬁ ed in chapter 1, “Types

TABLE 

How conﬂ ict approaches work together

You are an avoider You are a seeker

Your

counterpart

is an

avoider

What happens:

 Both of you lean toward

doing nothing.

 You may tamp down feel-

ings that could explode

later on.

How to manage:

 One of you needs to take

the lead.

 Say directly, “I know we

both don’t like conﬂ ict,

but instead of doing noth-

ing, should we consider

other options?”

 Do your best to draw the

person out in a sensitive,

thoughtful way.

 If things get tough, don’t

shy away. Fight your

natural instinct.

What happens:

 You tend to bulldoze your

counterpart into agreeing

with you.

 Your counterpart may act

passive-aggressively to

get his point across.

How to manage:

 Ask the person to

participate actively in

the conversation—not

hide her opinions.

 Don’t be a bully.

 Be patient with the pac-

ing of the conversation.

Your

counterpart

is a seeker

What happens:

 You are tempted to play

the role of “good guy” and

go along with what your

counterpart wants.

 You might get trampled

by your counterpart’s

requests.

How to manage:

 Explicitly ask for what

you need: “To have a

productive conversation,

I need you to be patient

with me and watch the

tone and volume of your

voice.”

 Earn the seeker’s respect

by being direct and to the

point.

 Don’t signal disrespect,

which is likely to set the

seeker oﬀ .

What happens:

 Neither of you is afraid to

say what’s on your mind.

 The discussion turns

contentious.

 You might end up saying

things you don’t believe.

 You both feel

disrespected.

How to manage:

 Since you’ll both be

eager to address the

situation, take extra

time to prepare for the

conversation.

 Know that you’re likely

to feel impatient and

schedule your discussion

in a way that allows you

both to take breaks.

 Be ready—things may get

heated. Suggest a coﬀ ee

break or a walk or a

change of scenery to help

even out emotions.

Source: Adapted from an interview with Amy Jen Su, coauthor with Muriel Maignan Wilkins of

Own the Room: Discover Your Signature Voice to Master Your Leadership Presence (Boston:

Harvard Business Review Press, 2013).

Assess the Situation

of Conﬂict,” and suss out whether your disagreement is

over issues related to relationship, task, process, or sta-

tus (see table 1-1).

Go over what’s happened so far with your counter-

part—what she’s said and done, who else has been in-

volved, where the disagreement started, and what it’s re-

lated to. With all that information, ask yourself: Are we

disagreeing about the goal of a project, or how to achieve

it? Does my counterpart think she should be leading

the initiative? Have we exchanged barbs? Or all of the

above?

Rarely do conﬂ icts fall into just one of these catego-

ries, so try to identify each type of conﬂ ict that’s occur-

ring. Doing this helps you to:

• Organize your own thoughts. In the midst of

a conﬂ ict, rational thinking often goes out the

window. Considering what type of conﬂ ict you’re

having will help you set aside your emotional reac-

tions and structure your thinking. If you decide to

directly address the situation, parsing the conﬂ ict

into categories will set you up for a successful

conversation (see chapter 5, “Get Ready for the

Conversation”).

• Identify common ground. By labeling your dif-

ferences of opinion, you’ll also see where you and

your counterpart concur. If you disagree on how

exactly to compensate a customer who received

bad service (process), you may note that you agree

on the need to make the customer happy (task).

Managing a Conﬂ ict

This shared goal becomes a foundation for reach-

ing a resolution (see chapter 6, “Have a Productive

Conversation” ).

• Structure the conversation. Before you begin your

discussion with your counterpart, create a list of

the types of conﬂ ict you’re experiencing and the

speciﬁ c issues you disagree on. This will help guide

your conversation and keep you focused on the

issue at hand.

Be particularly careful when labeling a disagreement

a “relationship conﬂ ict.” Many disagreements do end

up here, but personalities are not always to blame, says

Ben Dattner, author of The Blame Game: How the Hid-

den Rules of Credit and Blame Determine Our Success or

Failure. “More often than not, the real underlying cause

of workplace strife is the situation itself rather than the

people involved.” What people think they’re ﬁ ghting

about isn’t actually what they are ﬁ ghting about. For ex-

ample, they might perceive the root cause of the strug-

gle to be a personality clash when in fact it’s a process

conﬂ ict.

Dattner explains: “Perhaps the conﬂ ict is due to some-

one on the team simply not doing her job, in which case

talking about personality as being the cause of conﬂ ict is

a dangerous distraction from the real issue . . . Focusing

too much on either hypothetical or irrelevant causes of

conﬂ ict may work in the short term, but it creates the

risk over the long term that the underlying causes will

never be addressed or ﬁ xed.”

Assess the Situation

Determine Your Goal

Before you decide which approach to take, determine

what you hope to accomplish. Keeping in mind the per-

sonalities of the people involved, their communication

styles, and the type of conﬂict you’re having, reﬂect on

your ultimate goal: Do you want to complete the project

quickly? To deliver the best results you can? Does your

relationship with this person matter more than the out-

come of the work? Figure out what you need to get done.

If you’re under pressure to complete a presentation by a

certain date and your counterpart in sales is complain-

ing about how much data you need from him, you might

consider doing nothing so that you can get the numbers

you need and hit your deadline. Later you could explain

to the sales guy how his griping impacted you and ask

what would work better for him for future requests.

If you’re having more than one type of conﬂ ict, you

might set more than one goal. For example, if you’re

ﬁ ghting with your conﬂ ict-seeking boss about which

metrics to report to the senior leadership team (task

conﬂ ict) and you and your boss have exchanged heated

emails that challenge each other’s understanding of web

analytics (relationship conﬂ ict), your goal may be to

come up with a set of stats that you can both live with

and to make sure that your boss understands that you

respect her and her expertise.

Make sure your goal is reasonable, suggests IMD’s

Jean-François Manzoni, who has conducted extensive

research on conﬂ ict management. Ask yourself: Does

Managing a Conﬂ ict

what I want make sense? Is it realistic? If not, set your

sights a little lower. Come up with a small, manageable

goal, such as “agreeing on which of us will own the re-

design project” or “creating a six-week plan for how our

team will collaborate.” If you’re disagreeing over how to

proceed on an important project, your goal might be to

end the conversation by simply agreeing on the next step

rather than cementing a full implementation plan.

It’s not uncommon, particularly with relationship

conﬂ ict, to want to set a goal that’s about changing the

other person. Perhaps you’d like to show your colleague

that her passive-aggressive behavior doesn’t work or

make sure your boss knows what a jerk he’s been for the

past week. But these kinds of agendas are better dropped

before they lead to full-on ﬁ ghts.

“It’s easy to become aggravated by other people’s ac-

tions and forget what you were trying to achieve in the

ﬁ rst place,” says Jeffrey Pfeffer, of Stanford’s Graduate

School of Business. But it’s not likely you’re going to

change the other person, so focus on your goal. If the

conﬂict were over and you found that you had won, what

would that look like?

Pick Your Option

Now it’s time to decide what to do. Taking into account

your goal, and the other person’s natural tendency and

communication style, which of the four options discussed

in chapter 2 is best for handling the speciﬁc situation

you’re in (see table 4-2)?

There is no magic formula that tells you which ap-

proach to take. It’s not like two conﬂ ict seekers having a

Assess the Situation

TABLE 

The four options for addressing conﬂ ict

The option What it is Use it when . . .

Do nothing Ignoring and swallow-

ing the conﬂ ict

 You don’t have the energy or

time.

 You suspect the other person is

unwilling to have a constructive

conversation.

 You have little or no power.

 You won’t beat yourself up or

stew about it.

Address

indirectly

Skirting the issue

instead of naming it

 It’s important in your culture to

save face.

 You work in a place where direct

confrontation is inappropriate.

 You think the other person will

be more willing to take feedback

from someone else.

Address

directly

Actively trying to

change the situation

by talking to the other

person

 You worry that there will be

lingering resentment if you don’t

clear the air.

 You’ve tried other options and

the problem persists.

 You want to get your relation-

ship with your counterpart back

on track.

Exit Getting out of the

situation entirely by

being reassigned

to another project,

ﬁ nding a new boss, or

leaving the company

 You’re dealing with someone

from another department or

outside your company where

your jobs aren’t interdependent.

 You can easily ﬁ nd a job some-

where else.

 You’ve tried other options and

nothing has worked.

relationship conﬂ ict who want to restore a friendly rap-

port should always use the “address directly” approach.

The reality is that the option you choose depends on

all of the above factors as well as other circumstances,

such as your ofﬁ ce norms or the amount of time pres-

sure you’re under. Play out each option in your head and

Managing a Conﬂ ict

assess the pros and cons for your speciﬁ c situation. If you

do nothing, will you be able to let go of the conﬂ ict? If

you directly confront, will your counterpart be able to

engage constructively? There is no one right answer;

there’s just the one that’s right for you and the circum-

stances you’re in. (See also the sidebar “Know When to

Walk Away.”)

Be mindful of your natural tendency

Because the conﬂ ict may have triggered a ﬁ ght-or-ﬂ ight

response in your brain, your immediate response—“We

need to address this right away” or “I’m going to ﬁ nd a

new job”—may not be the best one. Conﬂ ict avoiders of-

ten gravitate toward the ﬁ rst two options (doing nothing

or addressing the conﬂ ict indirectly), while seekers prefer

the latter two (addressing directly or exiting). Keep this

in mind when you’re choosing your option. Ask yourself

whether you’re doing what’s best for the situation—and

will most likely help you achieve your goal—or if you’re

opting for an approach that’s most comfortable for you.

Cool down before deciding

Brett says that it’s wise to take a breather before

choosing an approach. “Weighing whether to bring up

and try to resolve a conﬂ ict should be a rational decision.

The ﬁ rst question to ask yourself: Am I too emotional

right now?” she says. If so, take a step back from the con-

ﬂ ict. Return to your desk and take a few deep breaths.

Go for a walk outside. Or sleep on it. You want to be sure

whatever route you choose is based on a lucid decision,

not a rash one.

Assess the Situation

KNOW WHEN TO WALK AWAY

It’s not an easy decision to walk away from a conﬂ ict—

temporarily or permanently. But it’s important to rec-

ognize when the situation calls for it. “If you’re angry or

upset—or your colleague is—it’s not a good time to en-

gage. It won’t help if either of you is yelling or pound-

ing the table,” says Jeanne Brett. She explains that

there’s a lot of research that shows people are unable

to be rational when their emotions arehigh(see more

on managing your emotions in chapter 6).

Judith White, a leadership professor at the Tuck

School of Business at Dartmouth, says there are several

signs that you need to walk away—at least temporarily:

• Your counterpart is yelling or is otherwise out of

control.

• You feel as if you’re going to lose control in

any way that might be dangerous to you, your

counter part, or your relationship.

• The ﬁ ght is happening in a public setting where

others can see or hear you.

• It becomes obvious that the discussion can’t be

resolved through the current conversation. You

or your counterpart repeating the same argu-

ment over and over is the telltale sign here.

• Your colleague has never demonstrated a will-

ingness to concede.

(continued)

Managing a Conﬂ ict

KNOW WHEN TO WALK AWAY

(continued)

• The damage is already done. For example,

maybe the project you’re ﬁ ghting over ended last

week and the decision can’t be reversed.

Once you’ve made the tough decision to walk away,

how do you actually do it? Here are some tips:

• If the situation feels overly heated or danger-

ous, simply walk away. Leave the room, go to the

bathroom, or take a walk outside the building.

• If you can, explain that you need some time

to think through the conﬂ ict before coming

back to it. “Don’t ever tell someone he or she

needs to calm down, because the person will

lose face or only become more upset,” advises

White. (For more sample language examples,

see chapter 2, “Your Options for Handling

Conﬂ ict.”)

• Take the time you need to cool down (or let

your counterpart cool down). When you feel

ready to make a smart and thoughtful choice

about how to address the conﬂ ict, you can

return to it.

Here’s an example. Jonathan was meeting with his

project manager, Rebecca, about why they were falling

behind in their deadlines. As a conﬂ ict seeker, he was

Assess the Situation

asking pointed questions to get at the root of what

was behind the delays. Rebecca was getting more and

more agitated as Jonathan went line by line through

the plan. Soon Rebecca snapped. She stood up and

pointed her ﬁ nger at Jonathan, accusing him of bad-

gering her. “This is your fault, not mine,” she said.

Jonathan quickly apologized for pushing so hard, but

Rebecca wouldn’t hear it. She yelled, “I don’t need

your apologies. I need you to stop %^@# harassing

me.” Jonathan realized he was stuck. Rebecca had

lost control, and he didn’t feel like anything he said

would help. He stood up and said, “I’m sorry that this

conversation has taken this turn. I’m going to go back

to my desk to think through how we might resolve this.

It’d be great if we could regroup tomorrow.” Rebecca

sent him an apology later that night, and when they

had both calmed down the next day, they were able

to have a more rational conversation about how to get

the project back on track.

Sometimes delaying a tense conversation by a day

helps, as it did with Rebecca and Jonathan. But some-

times, a day is not enough. You may be faced with a

situation in which you decide to permanently walk

away—by either doing nothing or exiting the relation-

ship entirely. Whether or not you do this, says White,

depends on two questions: How important is this re-

lationship? How potentially valuable is this deal? As

(continued)

Managing a Conﬂ ict

KNOW WHEN TO WALK AWAY

(continued)

Deepak Malhotra and Max H. Bazerman point out in

Negotiation Genius: How to Overcome Obstacles and

Achieve Brilliant Results at the Bargaining Table and

Beyond, you shouldn’t negotiate when the costs of ne-

gotiation exceed the potential gains.

Exiting the relationship is particularly advisable

when the situation is causing you extreme discomfort—

your health is suﬀ ering, for example. If you can’t con-

centrate on anything else or are having panic attacks,

there’s no sense enduring more torture. Also, if your

counterpart is singling you out and trying to prevent

you from doing your job, it’s time to take extreme mea-

sures. Speak to someone else, such as your boss or

an HR representative, to see what support is available

to you.

In a highly emotional conﬂ ict—in which one or both

parties are extremely angry or upset—it can be tempting

to exercise the exit option. But even situations in which

feelings are running high can beneﬁ t from you opting to

address it, or even doing nothing. Judith White says: “It’s

natural for people to feel strong emotion in a conﬂ ict

situation. Once the conﬂ ict is identiﬁ ed and addressed,

and parties are allowed to vent, emotion usually dissi-

pates . . . Recognize the emotion, but don’t let it stop you

from negotiating.”

Assess the Situation

Adapt Your Approach

Managing conﬂ ict is a ﬂ uid process. You may start with

one approach and then ﬁ nd you need to switch to an-

other if your selected approach is no longer working or

the conﬂ ict grows or changes. For example, you may

decide to directly address the situation by talking with

your colleague about why you’re disagreeing over the

targets each of your teams should be hitting, but then

ﬁ nd that you’re getting nowhere: Your coworker is un-

responsive or, worse, frustrated that you don’t agree

with her and just gets angrier. Then you may decide to

do nothing and move on. You could also start with the

do-nothing option and realize that the problem is get-

ting worse, so you need to address it directly, by talking

with your colleague, or indirectly, by going to your boss.

As you weigh the options for your speciﬁ c situation,

you don’t have to make a choice and stick to it no mat-

ter what. You can always change tactics as your conﬂ ict

plays out.

Consider this example. Amara and Vivek work closely

in a small design group. Amara has to complete her ini-

tial designs before Vivek can take over the presentations

and do the formatting that is his responsibility. In a team

meeting, Vivek made an offhand comment about Amara

“taking her time” with the latest batch of presentations.

Amara thought about the statement, and even talked

about it with another colleague, and she concluded that

it could be interpreted in several ways, but the implica-

tion was that Amara’s speed was impacting Vivek’s work.

Amara tends to avoid conﬂ ict, so she didn’t like the idea

Managing a Conﬂ ict

of bringing it up with Vivek. Plus they had worked well

together for so long. She didn’t see the point.

She thought she could let it go. And for a few weeks,

she did. But soon she realized that it was still bothering

her. Every time she handed something off to Vivek, she

mentally replayed his saying “She’s taking her time,” so

she decided to address the situation directly. She sched-

uled an appointment with Vivek to ask what he had

meant and to ﬁ nd a way to move forward.

The ﬂ uidity of the process can work the other way,

too. Take Marie’s story. She called one of her long-time

vendors to directly address and explain that her com-

pany’s payment terms had changed. In the middle of the

conversation, Claude, the ﬁ nance manager at the vendor,

hung up on her. She emailed him and said that she’d like

to set up a time to talk. But when they got on the phone

again, Claude wouldn’t say anything other than “This

doesn’t work for us.” Marie was offended and frustrated.

Recognizing that the direct approach wasn’t working,

she decided to go to Claude’s boss and appeal to him.

She didn’t want to get Claude in trouble, but they clearly

weren’t able to resolve the conﬂ ict on their own. Soon af-

ter she spoke with Claude’s manager and explained

the situation, Claude called her and offered to negotiate

the terms.

The next two chapters talk about preparing for and con-

ducting a conversation if you’ve decided to address the

conﬂ ict directly. Even if you’ve chosen one of the other

options, your approach may change, so it’s best to be

prepared.

CHAPTER 

Get Ready for the

Conversation

Once you’ve resolved to directly address the conﬂ ict, it’s

tempting to have the conversation immediately. But tak-

ing time to prepare will help you remain calm and in-

crease the chances that you and your counterpart will

come away with a better solution than either of you

could have predicted.

Below are several guidelines to help you prepare for a

productive discussion.

Check Your Mindset

If you’re getting yourself ready for a conversation that

you’ve labeled “difﬁcult,” you’re more likely to feel ner-

vous, stressed, angry, or upset. To minimize those nega-

tive emotions, try to think about it as a non-charged

conversation, suggests Jean-François Manzoni. For ex-

ample, instead of giving negative feedback, you’re having

Managing a Conﬂ ict

a constructive conversation about development. Or

you’re not saying “no” to your boss; you’re offering up an

alternative solution.

“A difﬁ cult conversation tends to go best when you

think about it as just a normal conversation,” says Holly

Weeks, a communications expert. This isn’t sugarcoat-

ing. Be honest with yourself about how hard the conver-

sation might be, but also put as constructive a frame on

it as possible. You might tell yourself: We may have to

talk about difﬁ cult things, but we’ll work through them

together because Carol and I have always respected each

other.

And focus on what you stand to gain from the con-

versation. “Assume you have something to learn; assume

there is a more creative solution than you’ve thought of,”

says Jeff Weiss, author of the HBR Guide to Negotiating.

By entering the discussion with an open mind, regard-

less of your coworker’s stance, you’re more likely to ﬁ nd

common ground.

Take Your Counterpart’s Perspective

Try to get a sense of what your colleague might be think-

ing. Ideally you already did some thinking about this

when you analyzed the conﬂ ict, but go a little deeper.

She had a rationale for the way she’s behaved so far (even

if you don’t agree with it). What might that reason be?

“Try to imagine your way into their shoes as best you

can. You can learn a lot by doing that simple mental ex-

ercise,” says Jonathan Hughes. Think about what’s going

on for them. Ask yourself: What would I do if I were her,

or if I were in R&D instead of marketing? What if I were

Get Ready for the Conversation

someone reporting to me? What if I were my boss? Also

ask yourself: What is she trying to achieve in the con-

ﬂ ict? You’ll need a sense of what her goal is if you want

to resolve it. Identify places where you see eye to eye on

the issues. This common ground will give you a founda-

tion to joint problem-solve.

Ask a colleague what he thinks is going on in your

counterpart’s mind. Make sure it’s someone you trust,

says Hughes. You might say something like, “I’d love

some advice and coaching. I haven’t worked much with

Akiko before, but I know you have. Can you help me un-

derstand how she might be seeing this situation?” Don’t

use the conversation to vent and seek validation. “Paint

the situation for him as neutrally as you can,” says Karen

Dillon, author of the HBR Guide to Ofﬁ ce Politics. “Cat-

aloging every fault and misstep will probably get you

sympathy but not constructive feedback, so focus on the

problem.”

It’s unlikely that you’ll be able to gather all the infor-

mation you want about your colleague and her interests

before you sit down together. Weiss says, “Craft a set of

questions to ask in the room to uncover critical infor-

mation and test any hypotheses you made.” This will

help you, once you’re face-to-face, to show that you care

enough about her perspective to think it through be-

forehand and to discover more about how she views the

situation.

In addition to thinking about your counterpart’s take

on the situation, remember the work you did in the pre-

vious chapter to consider his natural tendency for han-

dling conﬂict and his communication style.

Managing a Conﬂ ict

Consider the Larger

Organizational Context

While the conﬂ ict may revolve around you and your

counter part, the reality is that you’re both part of a

broader context—that of your organization or your in-

dustry. Consider how the larger playing ﬁ eld you’re oper-

ating in might be affecting the conﬂ ict.

First, determine the culture of your organization or

team. Do people in your unit generally try to avoid con-

ﬂ ict? Or is it acceptable to have heated debates? Are you

at odds with an external vendor and feeling less invested

in working things out because you have several other

partners who are courting your business? How might

the larger culture be shaping the current conﬂ ict you’re

having? Is it making it worse than it needs to be?

Hughes points out that quite a few years ago Micro-

soft had a reputation for having an aggressive culture.

“During your ﬁ rst few presentations their people would

just tear into you. The culture was one that valued con-

ﬂ ict. ‘We’re going to use rigorous, ﬁ ery debate to separate

good from bad ideas,’” he says. In a company like this,

which places a premium on being direct, you’d need to

be prepared for a lively debate and know not to take

criticism personally. On the other hand, there are com-

panies where consensus is the norm. “In these places,

you’re going to take a slower, more iterative approach to

conﬂ ict,” says Hughes.

Second, reﬂ ect on the current circumstances sur-

rounding your organization. Are there potential layoffs

Get Ready for the Conversation

looming? Have budgets been cut? Is your industry on a

downward trend? Your conﬂ ict may be intensiﬁ ed when

tensions are high in the company, or it might take on a

more severe or vicious tone. The answers to these ques-

tions may not change the approach you choose, but you

should consider them as you get ready for the discussion.

Also ﬁ nd out who else in the organization can help you

both reach a resolution. Are there colleagues who need

to be involved in the discussions? Should you consult

your boss or HR?

Plan Your Message

Think about what you’ll say when you get in the room

before you get in the room, incorporating your goal

and your colleague’s perspective, interests, and style.

What do you want your counterpart to take away from

the conversation? “You’ll have a better chance of be-

ing heard if you deﬁ ne your message and decide how

you’ll convey it,” says Dillon. Plan how you’ll approach

the conversation— literally what you will and won’t say.

“View it as a presentation,” suggests Dillon. “What infor-

mation does your counterpart need to hear? Identify the

key points you’d like to make, highlighting mutual ben-

eﬁ ts when possible.” When you frame the conversation as

trying to achieve a shared goal—such as meeting a dead-

line, coming in under budget, or having a positive work

relationship—the conversation will go better.

But don’t script the entire conversation. That’s a waste

of time. “It’s very unlikely that it will go according to

your plan,” says Weeks. Your counterpart doesn’t know

Managing a Conﬂ ict

“his lines,” so when he “goes off script, you have no for-

ward motion” and the exchange “becomes weirdly artiﬁ -

cial.” Your strategy for the conversation should be “ﬂ ex-

ible” and contain “a repertoire of possible responses,”

says Weeks. Jot down notes and key points before your

conversation. Even with thoughtful planning, it’s not un-

common for there to be misalignment between what you

mean when you say something (your intention) and what

the other person hears (your impact). “It doesn’t matter

if your intent is honorable if your impact is not,” says

Linda Hill, a leadership professor at Harvard Business

School. Most people are very aware of what they meant

to say but are less tuned in to what the other person

heard or how they interpreted it. So choose your words

wisely, and try to anticipate and address anything that

might be misinterpreted (see chapter 6, “Have a Produc-

tive Conversation,” for more discussion tips).

Prepare for Multiple Scenarios

Since you can’t know how the conversation is going to go,

you may want to play out a few scenarios, suggests Amy

Jen Su. Find a trusted colleague with whom you can do a

few role-plays. What if your counterpart gets upset and

cries? What if she gets angry? Try responding using dif-

ferent approaches and test out phrases you might use for

various possibilities. And ask your role-play partner to

give you feedback.

Pick the Right Time

Knowing exactly when to have the conversation can be

challenging. On the one hand, it might be easiest to get

Get Ready for the Conversation

it over with quickly, when all the details are fresh in your

mind. On the other hand, as discussed in the previous

chapter, it’s often a good idea for everyone to cool down

before trying to get into problem-solving mode. Here are

some tips on picking the right time:

• Consider your tendency. Check yourself before

you decide to delay or get into the conversation. If

you’re a seeker, you’re likely to want to get going

and have the conversation. But if your counterpart

is an avoider, he may need more time. And if you’re

an avoider, you may want to put the conversation

off, but watch that you’re not using that tactic as

an “out” so that you don’t have to face the issue

at all.

• Take into account any outside deadlines. Some-

times you don’t have the luxury of several days

or weeks to work out your disagreement. If the

budget you’re ﬁ ghting over is due to the executive

committee by the end of the month and it’s the

28th, you need to have the conversation sooner

rather than later.

• Check the emotions. As discussed in the previ-

ous chapter, it’s better to have the conversation

when you and your counterpart can be level-

headed. Ask yourself: Am I too emotional right

now? If so, you may say the wrong thing, embar-

rass yourself or your colleague, or create awkward

scenes for others. In those instances, take a walk

around the building, or change your surroundings

Managing a Conﬂ ict

by working in a small conference room or heading

home to work in peace.

“Occasionally, you need to let it go and come back to it

another time when you can both have the conversation,”

says Hill. It’s OK to walk away and return to the discus-

sion later. But if you decide to put off the conversation,

make a plan for when you will have it so that you don’t

keep delaying it.

When you’re ready, set up a meeting. Look for a time

when you’ll both be in a good frame of mind. “Not ﬁ rst

thing on Monday when you’re both coming in to a full

inbox. Not last thing on Friday when you’re eager for

the weekend to begin,” says Dillon. Be sure to schedule

enough time so that you’ll be able to reach a conclusion,

or at least end in a constructive place where you can

agree to meet again. In fact, you may want to have an

initial meeting to hear each other out and then sched-

ule a follow-up time when you can dig in to how to solve

the disagreement after you’ve both had time to reﬂ ect on

what the other person said.

Choose the Right Place

The venue will have an effect on whether you both feel

able to speak freely, express any emotions, and ulti-

mately reach a resolution, so select a location where

you’ll both be comfortable. “Right after lunch in a neu-

tral conference room? Over coffee at the local greasy

spoon?” suggests Dillon. You might take a walk outside

together for a change of scenery. Avoid choosing a place

that gives you or your counter part an advantage. Inviting

Get Ready for the Conversation

someone into your ofﬁ ce puts you in a power position,

for example, because it’s your space and you’re the one

sitting behind a desk. And when choosing a conference

room, think about who’s in adjacent rooms. Sometimes

walls are thinner than you think.

Ideally you want the conversation to happen face-

to-face in private. “Don’t try to solve differences using

email, which does not do a good job of conveying tone

or nuance,” says Dillon. If the issue starts on email, send

a gentle request such as “Could we continue this discus-

sion in person?” or just call the person.

If you have a conﬂ ict with one person during a meet-

ing, don’t attempt to work it out in front of the group,

even if others in the room have a stake in the outcome.

It’s better to take the conversation off-line and then re-

port back to the group. For example, if you and a col-

league start to debate the speciﬁ c marketing language

that will accompany the rollout of a new product and

the conversation gets heated, you might say, “Tom and

I seem to have the strongest viewpoints on this. Would

it be OK with you, Tom, if we paused here and contin-

ued the discussion after the meeting? Then we can come

back to the group with our recommendation.” This will

give you and Tom time to cool down, make sure you

don’t embarrass yourselves in front of everyone, and al-

low you to have a more candid and fruitful discussion

later.

Vent

Before you get into the room, ﬁ nd a trusted colleague or

a spouse or friend who can listen to you complain. Say

Managing a Conﬂ ict

everything you feel about the situation—the good, the

bad, and the ugly. Don’t hold back. Susan David, a psy-

chologist and coauthor of the Harvard Business Review

article “Emotional Agility,” says that “suppressing your

emotions—deciding not to say something when you’re

upset—can lead to bad results.” She explains that if you

don’t express your emotions, they’re likely to show up

elsewhere.

Psychologists call this emotional leakage. “Have you

ever yelled at your spouse or child after a frustrating day

at work—a frustration that had nothing to do with him

or her? When you bottle up your feelings, you’re likely

to express your emotions in unintended ways instead,

either sarcastically or in a completely different con-

text. Suppressing your emotions is associated with poor

memory, difﬁ culties in relationships, and physiological

costs (such as cardiovascular health problems),” David

explains. Prevent your emotions from seeping out—in

the conversation or at home—by getting your feelings

out ahead of time. You’ll be more centered and calm

when you’re having the discussion.

Table 5-1 summarizes the guidelines. Use this check-

list to prepare mentally, strategically, and logistically for

your discussion.

When You Have No Time

to Prepare

Sometimes there’s no time to do this advance work.

A decision needs to be made immediately, or your col-

league catches you off guard, or your boss storms into

Get Ready for the Conversation

TABLE 

Your pre-conversation checklist



Do Don’t

□ CHECK YOUR

MINDSET

Be positive, but also

honest with yourself

about how diﬃ cult

the conversation

may be.

□ CONSIDER THE

OTHER POSITIONS

Look at the situation

from your counter-

part’s perspective:

What does she want?

□ VENT

Get your emotions

out beforehand so

you can be calm dur-

ing the conversation.

 Focus on what you

stand to gain from

the discussion and

assume you have

something to learn.

 Ask a trusted co-

worker for input if

you’re at a loss about

what your counterpart

is thinking.

 Identify places where

you see eye to eye.

 Get your feelings out

ahead of time so you’ll

be more centered and

calm.

 Come up with a list of

questions you want to

ask when you sit down

together.

 Label the conversa-

tion as “diﬃ cult.”

 Sugarcoat what’s go-

ing to happen.

 Assume you can know

everything your coun-

terpart is thinking

ahead of time.

 Vent to a friend who

typically riles you up.



Do Don’t

□ PLAN YOUR MESSAGE

Think about what

you’ll say ahead of

time.

□ PREPARE FOR

MULTIPLE

SCENARIOS

Play out various ways

the conversation

might go.

 Plan how you’ll ap-

proach the conversa-

tion—literally what

you will and won’t say.

 Focus on a shared

goal.

 Find a trusted col-

league with whom

you can do a few

role-plays.

 Test out phrases you

might say.

 Script the entire

conversation—just jot

down notes and key

points.

 Assume you know

how the conversation

is going to go.

(continued)

Managing a Conﬂ ict



Do Don’t

□ PICK THE RIGHTTIME

Choose a time

when you and your

counterpart can be

unrushed and calm.

□ SELECT THE

RIGHTPLACE

Look for some-

whereyou can

meetin private.

 Pick a time when you

and your counterpart

won’t be rushed.

 Consider an initial

meeting to hear

each other out, and

then schedule a

follow-up time when

you can focus on

problem-solving.

 Talk in person, or at

least on the phone.

 Try a change of

scenery—going to a

coﬀ ee shop or taking

a walk.

 Have the conversation

over email

 Try to talk to your col-

league when emotions

are high.

 Have a fight in a group

setting (such as in a

team meeting).

 Choose a “turf” set-

ting where you or your

counterpart has a

power advantage.

TABLE continued

your ofﬁ ce. Jeanne Brett suggests you try to put off the

conversation if at all feasible. You might say, “I see that

this is a problem, and I’d like to take some time to think

about ways to resolve it. I promise I’ll come by your ofﬁ ce

tomorrow to discuss it.” It’s important to not be dismis-

sive and to acknowledge your colleague’s feelings—“I can

see you’re really upset about this”—and then ask whether

you can set a time to talk when you’re both calmer. If

your counterpart insists that you have the discussion

right then, you might have to go ahead. “The best you

can do in these situations is to remain calm and stop

yourself from getting into a negative emotional spiral,”

says Brett. (See chapter 6 for more on how to maintain

your composure and manage your emotions.)

Get Ready for the Conversation

You may be wondering, Do I really need to do all of this

for one 10-minute conversation? The answer is yes.

While it takes time (though it will get easier the more

you do it), there is a huge payoff. You’ll go into the con-

versation with the right mindset, feeling conﬁ dent,

knowing what you want to achieve. This foundation is

the key to a productive discussion.

CHAPTER 

Have a Productive

Conversation

You’re now ready to have a constructive discussion. Your

goal is to work with your counterpart to better under-

stand “the underlying causes of the problem and what

you can do to solve it together,” says Jeanne Brett.

First, frame the discussion so that you and your coun-

terpart start off on the right foot. Then there are three

things you’ll do simultaneously as the conversation

ﬂ ows: Manage your emotions, listen well, and be heard.

When you sit down with your counterpart, don’t be

overly wedded to the information you’ve gathered in

advance. Be ﬂ exible. “You don’t want to be so prepared

that you anticipate a particular reaction and you’re not

able to take in what’s actually happening,” says Amy Jen

Su. If you see the behavior you expected, then label it (in

your head) and continue to observe. But allow yourself

to be surprised, too. The same goes for cultural norms.

Managing a Conﬂ ict

“Knowing something about your colleague’s culture gives

you hypotheses to test. But just because you have an East

Asian at the table doesn’t mean he will be indirect,” says

Brett.

Frame the Conversation

Your ﬁ rst few sentences can make or break the rest of the

discussion. Set the conversation up for success by estab-

lishing common ground between you and your counter-

part, labeling the type of conﬂ ict you’re having, asking

your counterpart for advice, laying out ground rules, and

focusing on the future. Here’s more on how to do that.

Focus on common ground

“Too often we end up framing a conﬂ ict as who’s right

or who’s wrong,” Linda Hill says. Instead of trying to un-

derstand what’s really happening in a disagreement, we

advocate for our position. Hill admits that it’s normal to

be defensive and even to blame the other person, but im-

plying “You’re wrong” will make matters worse. Instead,

state what you agree on. In chapter 4, when you identi-

ﬁ ed the type of conﬂict you’re having, you noted where

there was common ground, and in chapter 5, you identi-

ﬁ ed where your goals might overlap. Put those common-

alities out there as a way to connect. “We both want to

make sure our patients get the best care possible” or “We

agree that the new email system should integrate with

our existing IT systems” or “We both want our depart-

ment to get adequate funding.”

If you weren’t able to pinpoint something that you

both agreed on beforehand or you’re not sure you know

Have a Productive Conversation

what your counterpart’s goal is, the easiest way to ﬁ nd

out is to ask, says Jonathan Hughes, “although some-

times people need help crystallizing their goals.” Ex-

plain what’s important to you and then ask, “Is there

any overlap with what you care about? Or do you

have another goal?” Asking questions like these sets a

collaborative tone.

Label the type of conﬂ ict

Acknowledge the type of conﬂ ict you’re having—

relationship, task, process, or status—and check with

your counterpart that he sees it the same way. “It seems

as if the crux of our disagreement is about where to

launch the product ﬁ rst. Do you agree?” You may also

want to reassure him that you value your relationship.

This will convey to him that your point of contention is

not a personal one. Say something like, “I really respect

you and how you run your department. This is not about

our relationship, but about how our two teams will work

together on this project.”

If your conﬂ ict covers several different types, as many

do, name each one in turn so that they’re all out on the

table. Hughes suggests you say something along these

lines: It feels like we agree on the same goal here—to

bring in revenue from this new product as soon as pos-

sible. [Establishing common ground on task] Our con-

ﬂ ict seems to be more about how we do it—the timing of

how quickly we roll out this product and whether we roll

it out in target markets ﬁ rst. [Labeling the process con-

ﬂ ict] In addition to that disagreement over the means, it

seems—and I could be wrong about this—you feel some

Managing a Conﬂ ict

frustration with me about how I’ve approached this.

[Naming the relationship conﬂ ict] I want to put that

all on the table because success is going to depend on us

working together.

Ask for advice

Research by Katie Liljenquist at Brigham Young Uni-

versity’s Department of Organizational Leadership and

Strategy and Adam Galinsky, the chair of the Manage-

ment Department at the Columbia Business School, has

shown that asking for advice makes you appear more

warm, humble, and cooperative—all of which can go a

long way in resolving a conﬂ ict. “Being asked for advice

is inherently ﬂ attering because it’s an implicit endorse-

ment of our opinions, values, and expertise. Further-

more, it works equally well up and down the hierarchy—

subordinates are delighted and empowered by requests

for their insights, and superiors appreciate the deference

to their authority and experience,” say Liljenquist and

Galinsky. Of course, any goodwill garnered by this tac-

tic will swiftly be undone if you ignore your counterpart’s

suggestions. Incorporate at least some small part of what

she advises into your approach.

There are two other beneﬁ ts to framing a conﬂ ict as

a request for advice, according to Liljenquist and Galin-

sky. First, you nudge your counterpart to see things from

your perspective. “The last time someone came to you

for advice, most likely, you engaged in an instinctive

mental exercise: You tried to put yourself in the other

person’s shoes and imagine the world through his eyes,”

they explain. The second beneﬁ t is that an adversary-

Have a Productive Conversation

turned- advisor may well become a champion for your

cause. “When someone offers you advice, it represents an

investment of his time and energy. Your request empow-

ers your advisor to make good on his recommendations

and become an advocate,” they say.

Set up ground rules

The conversation will go more smoothly if you agree on a

code of conduct. At a minimum, suggest no interrupting,

no yelling, and no personal attacks. This is especially im-

portant for conﬂ ict seekers, who may see no problem in

raising their voices. Acknowledge that you both may need

to take a break at some point. Then ask what other rules

are important to your counterpart. If you’re concerned

your colleague won’t abide by the rules, write them down

on a piece of paper to keep in front of you or on a white-

board if you’re in a conference room. If your counterpart

begins to raise his voice, for example, you can nod to-

ward the written rules and offer a gentle reminder. “We

said we weren’t going to yell. Can you lower your voice?”

These rules may also be helpful if you need to change the

tone of the conversation later on (see “Change the tenor

of the conversation” later in the chapter).

Focus on the future

It’s tempting to rehash everything that’s happened up to

this point. But it’s generally not helpful to go over every

detail or to focus too heavily on the past. “You can’t re-

solve a battle over a problem that has already happened,

but you can set a course going forward,” says Judith

White. Focus the discussion on solving the problem and

Managing a Conﬂ ict

moving on. You can start by saying “I know a lot has gone

on between us. If it’s OK with you, I’d like to talk about

what we both might do to make sure this project gets

completed on budget and how we can better work to-

gether in the future.” If your counterpart starts to harp on

the past, don’t chastise her for it. Instead, refocus the

conversation by saying something like “I hear you. How

can we make sure that doesn’t happen again?”

Each of these steps will establish the right tone for

your conversation: that you and your counterpart are in

it together and you need to reach a resolution that works

for both of you.

Manage Your Emotions—and Theirs

Conﬂ ict can bring up all sorts of negative emotions for

seekers and avoiders alike. Recognize the emotion, but

don’t let it stop you from having the conversation. To

watch your own reaction while also recognizing your

counterpart’s feelings, understand why conﬂ ict can feel

so bad. Remain calm, acknowledge and label your feel-

ings, and allow for venting. Let’s take a closer look at

how to manage emotions and clear the way for a produc-

tive discussion.

Understand why you’re so uncomfortable

In the middle of a tough conversation, it can be difﬁ cult

to take a deep breath and think rationally about what to

do next. This is because you’re ﬁ ghting your body’s natu-

ral reaction, says psychiatry professor John Ratey. Your

brain experiences conﬂ ict, particularly relationship con-

ﬂ ict, as a threat: I disagree with you. You haven’t done

Have a Productive Conversation

your job. I don’t like what you just said. You’re wrong. I

hate you.

Leadership expert Annie McKee suggests that conﬂ ict

makes us feel bad because it means we’re going to have to

give something up—our point of view, the way we’re used

to doing something, or maybe even power. That threat

triggers your sympathetic nervous system. As a result,

your heart rate and breathing rate spike, your muscles

tighten, the blood in your body moves away from your

organs. “Some people feel their stomach tense as acid

moves into it,” says Ratey.

Depending on the perceived size and intensity of the

threat, you may then move into ﬁ ght-or-ﬂ ight mode.

“When you’re panicking, feeling crushed or over-

whelmed, the body’s response is to be aggressive—punch

or push back—or to run away and hide,” says Ratey. “This

is when you’re in it full-time and the discomfort goes all

over your body. It’s like seeing a bunch of snakes or spi-

ders in front of you.” When your brain perceives danger

like this, it can be difﬁ cult to make rational decisions,

which is precisely what you need to do in a difﬁ cult con-

versation. Luckily, it’s possible to interrupt this physical

response and restore calm in your body.

Remain calm

There are several things you can do to keep your cool

during a conversation or to calm yourself down if you’ve

gotten worked up. For conﬂ ict seekers, it’s especially

important to keep your temper in check. For avoiders,

these tactics will help keep you from retreating from the

conversation.

Managing a Conﬂ ict

• Take a deep breath. Notice the sensation of air

coming in and out of your lungs. Feel it pass

through your nostrils or down the back of your

throat. This will take your attention off the physi-

cal signs of panic and keep you centered.

• Focus on your body. “Standing up and walking

around may activate the thinking part of your

brain,” says Ratey, and keep you from exploding.

If you and your counterpart are seated at a table,

instead of leaping to your feet, you can say, “I feel

like I need to stretch some. Mind if I walk around

a bit?” If that doesn’t feel comfortable, do small

things like crossing two ﬁ ngers or placing your feet

ﬁ rmly on the ground and noticing what the ﬂ oor

feels like on the bottom of your shoes.

• Look around the room. Become more aware of the

space between you and your counterpart, suggests

Jen Su. Notice the color of the walls or any artwork

hanging there. Watch the hands of the clock move.

“Pay attention to the whole room,” she says. “This

will help you realize that there’s more space in the

room than you’re currently allowing.”

• Say a mantra. Jen Su also recommends repeating

a phrase to yourself to remind you to stay calm.

Some of her clients have found “Go to neutral” to

be a helpful prompt. You can also try “This isn’t

about me,” “This will pass,” or “This is about the

business.”

Have a Productive Conversation

• Take a break. You may need to excuse yourself for

a moment—get a cup of coffee or a glass of water,

go to the bathroom, or take a brief stroll around

the ofﬁ ce. If you agreed up front that this might

happen, you can say, “I think I need that break

now. OK if we come back in ﬁ ve minutes?” If push-

ing pause wasn’t on your list of ground rules, you

can still make the request: “I’m sorry to interrupt

you, but I’d love to get a cup of coffee before we

continue. Can I get you something while I’m up?”

Acknowledge and label your feelings

When you’re feeling emotional, “the attention you give

your thoughts and feelings crowds your mind; there’s no

room to examine them,” says Susan David. To get dis-

tance from the feeling, label it. “Just as you call a spade

a spade, call a thought a thought and an emotion an

emotion,” says David. He is so wrong about that and it’s

making me mad becomes I’m having the thought that

my coworker is wrong, and I’m feeling anger. Labeling

like this allows you to see your thoughts and feelings for

what they are: “transient sources of data that may or may

not prove helpful.” When you put that space between

these emotions and you, it’s easier to let them go—and

not bury them or let them explode.

Allow for venting

You’re probably not the only one who’s upset. When your

counterpart expresses anger or frustration, don’t stop

him. Let him vent as much as possible and remain calm

Managing a Conﬂ ict

while this is happening. Seekers may naturally do this,

while you may have to draw an avoider out. If you took

the time to air your own feelings with someone else (as

discussed at the end of the previous chapter), you’ll un-

derstand the importance of giving your counterpart this

space. That’s not to say it’s easy. Brett explains:

It’s hard not to yell back when you’re being attacked,

but that’s not going to help. To remain calm while your

colleague is venting and perhaps even hurling a few

insults, visualize your coworker’s words going over

your shoulder, not hitting you in the chest. Don’t act

aloof; it’s important to indicate that you’re listening.

But if you don’t feed your counterpart’s negative emo-

tion with your own, it’s likely he or she will wind down.

Without the fuel of your equally strong reaction, he or

she will run out of steam.

Don’t interrupt the venting or interject your own com-

mentary. “Hold back and let your counterpart say his or

her piece. You don’t have to agree with it, but listen,” Hill

says. While you’re doing this, you might be completely

quiet or you might indicate you’re listening by using

phrases such as “I get that” or “I understand.” Avoid say-

ing anything that assigns feeling or blame, such as “Calm

down” or “What you need to understand is . . .” This can

be an explosive trigger for a conﬂ ict seeker. If you can

tolerate the venting, without judging, you’ll soon be able

to guide the conversation to a more productive place.

Refocus the conversation on the substance of the conﬂ ict

Have a Productive Conversation

by saying “I’m glad I got to hear how this has affected

you. What do you think we should do next?” This will be-

gin to draw out potential solutions so that you can move

toward a resolution.

Listen Well

“If you listen to what the other person is saying, you’re

more likely to address the right issues and the conver-

sation always ends up being better,” says Jean-François

Manzoni. Hear your counterpart out and ask questions.

Here are tips for doing that.

Hear your coworker out

Even if you think you already understand your co worker’s

point of view—and you’ve put yourself in her shoes ahead

of time—hear what she has to say. This is especially im-

portant if you aren’t sure of what the other person sees as

the root of the conﬂ ict. Acknowledge that you don’t know,

and ask. This shows your counterpart “that you care,”

Manzoni says. “Express your interest in understanding

how the other person feels” and “take time to process the

other person’s words and tone,” he adds. Be considerate

and show compassion by validating what she’s saying

with phrases such as “I get it” or “I hear you.” Accord-

ing to Jeff Weiss, this requires that you “stop ﬁ guring out

your next line” and actively listen. Your coworker’s expla-

nation of his side may uncover an important piece of in-

formation that leads to a resolution. For example, if he

says he’s just trying to keep his boss happy, you can help

him craft a resolution that addresses his boss’s concerns.

Managing a Conﬂ ict

Ask thoughtful questions

It’s better to ask questions than to make statements;

questions demonstrate your receptiveness to a genuine

dialogue. This is when you bring in the questions you

crafted in the previous chapter to unearth your counter-

part’s viewpoint and test your hypotheses (see the side-

bar “Questions to Draw Out Your Counterpart’s Perspec-

tive”). Once you’ve had a chance to hear her thoughts,

Hill suggests you paraphrase and ask, “I think you

said X. Did I get that right?”

Don’t just take what she says at face value. This is es-

pecially important for a conﬂ ict avoider, who may not tell

you all that she’s thinking. Ask what her viewpoint looks

like in action. For example, says team expert Liane Davey,

“If you are concerned about a proposed course of action,

ask your teammates to think through the impact of im-

plementing their plan. ‘OK, we’re contemplating launch-

ing this product only to our U.S. customers. How is that

going to land with our two big customers in Latin Amer-

ica?’ This is less aggressive than saying ‘Our Latin Ameri-

can customers will be angry.’” She adds: “Anytime you can

demonstrate that you’re open to ideas and curious about

the right approach, it will open up the discussion.”

Hill suggests you also get to the underlying reason for

the initiative, policy, or approach that you’re disagreeing

with. You’ve already labeled the conﬂ ict as relationship,

task, process, and/or status, but return to those catego-

ries in your questions to give your counterpart the op-

portunity to share her view. How do you see the goal

Have a Productive Conversation

QUESTIONS TO DRAW OUT YOUR

COUNTERPART’S PERSPECTIVE

• What about this situation is most troubling

to you?

• What’s most important to you?

• Can you tell me about the assumptions you’ve

made here?

• Can you help me understand your thinking here?

• What makes you say that?

• Can you tell me more about that?

• What leads you to believe that?

• How does this relate to your other concerns?

• What would it take for us to be able to move

forward? How do we get there?

• What would you like to see happen?

• What does a resolution look like for you?

• What ideas do you have that would meet both

our needs?

• If this was completely in your control, how would

you handle it?

Managing a Conﬂ ict

differently? Why do you think you’re the best person to

lead the team?

Figure out why your counterpart thinks his idea is a

reasonable proposal. Say something like, “Sam, I want

to understand what we’re trying to accomplish with this

initiative. Can you go back and explain the reasoning be-

hind it?” Get Sam to talk more about what he wants to

achieve and why. It’s not enough to know that he wants

the project to be done in six months. You need to know

why that’s important to him. Is it because he made a

promise to his boss? Is it because the team that’s dedi-

cated to the project needs to be freed up to take on an

important client initiative? These are his underlying in-

terests, and they’ll help you later when you’re trying to

craft a resolution that incorporates his viewpoint (see

chapter 7, “Get to a Resolution and Make a Plan”).

You can return to the notion of asking for advice here.

Perhaps you genuinely don’t understand something, or

you’re shocked by something your counterpart has said.

Davey suggests that you be mildly self-deprecating and

own the misunderstanding. “If something is really sur-

prising to you (you can’t believe anyone would propose

anything so crazy), say so. ‘I think I’m missing something

here. Tell me how this will address our sales gap for Q1.’

This will encourage the person to restate his perspective

and give you time to understand it.”

Respectfully listening to and acknowledging your

counterpart’s viewpoint sets the stage for you to share

your side of the conﬂ ict. If he feels heard, he’s more likely

to hear you out as well.

Have a Productive Conversation

Be Heard

When it’s time to share your story, allow your counter-

part to understand your perspective in a genuine way.

“Letting down your guard and letting the other person in

may help her understand your point of view,” says Mark

Gerzon, author of Leading Through Conﬂ ict: How Suc-

cessful Leaders Transform Differences into Opportuni-

ties. Help your coworker see where you’re coming from

by speaking from your own perspective, thinking before

you talk, and watching body language (yours and hers)

for clues that the conversation may be going off the rails.

Own your perspective

If you feel mistreated, you may be tempted to launch

into your account of the events: “I want to talk about

how horribly you treated me in that meeting.” But that’s

unlikely to go over well.

Instead, treat your opinion like what it is: your opin-

ion. Start sentences with “I,” not “you.” Say “I’m annoyed

that this project is six months behind schedule,” rather

than “You’ve missed every deadline we’ve set.” This will

help the other person see your perspective and under-

stand that you’re not trying to blame him.

With a relationship conﬂ ict, explain exactly what is

bothering you and follow up by identifying what you

hope will happen. You might say, “I appreciate your

ideas, but I’m ﬁ nding it hard to hear them because

throughout this process, I’ve felt as if you didn’t respect

my ideas. That’s my perception. I’m not saying that it’s

Managing a Conﬂ ict

your intention. I’d like to clear the air so that we can con-

tinue to work together to make the project a success.”

Dorie Clark, author of Reinventing You: Deﬁ ne Your

Brand, Imagine Your Future, says that you should ad-

mit blame when appropriate. “It’s easy to demonize

your colleague. But you’re almost certainly contributing

to the dynamic in some way, as well,” Clark says. To get

anywhere, you have to understand—and acknowledge—

your role in the situation. Admitting your faults will help

set a tone of accountability for both of you, and your

counter part is more likely to own up to her missteps as

well. If she doesn’t, and instead seizes on your confes-

sion and harps on it—“That’s exactly why we’re in this

mess”—let it go. See it as part of the venting process de-

scribed earlier.

Pay attention to your words

Sometimes, regardless of your good intentions, what you

say can further upset your counterpart and make the

issue worse. Other times you might say the exact thing

that helps the person go from boiling mad to cool as a

cucumber. See the sidebar “Phrases to Make Sure You’ve

Heard.” There are some basic rules you can follow to

keep from pushing your counterpart’s buttons. Of course

you should avoid name-calling and ﬁ nger-pointing. Fo-

cus on your perspective, as discussed above, avoiding

sentences that start with “you” and could be misinter-

preted as accusations. Your language should be “simple,

clear, direct, and neutral,” says Holly Weeks. Don’t apol-

ogize for your feelings, either. The worst thing you can

do “is to ask your counterpart to have sympathy for you,”

Have a Productive Conversation

she says. Don’t say things like “I feel so bad about saying

this” or “This is really hard for me to do,” because it takes

the focus away from the problem and toward your own

neediness. While this can be hard, especially for conﬂ ict

avoiders, this language can make your counterpart feel

obligated to focus on making you feel better before mov-

ing on.

Davey provides two additional rules when it comes to

what you say:

• Say “and,” not “but.” “When you need to disagree

with someone, express your contrary opinion as

an ‘and.’ It’s not necessary for someone else to be

wrong for you to be right,” she says. When you’re

surprised to hear something your counterpart

has said, don’t interject with a “But that’s not

right!” Just add your perspective. Davey suggests

PHRASES TO MAKE SURE YOU’RE HEARD

• “Here’s what I’m thinking.”

• “My perspective is based on the following

assumptions . . .”

• “I came to this conclusion because . . .”

• “I’d love to hear your reaction to what I

justsaid.”

• “Do you see any ﬂ aws in my reasoning?”

• “Do you see the situation diﬀ erently?”

Managing a Conﬂ ict

something like this: “You think we need to leave

room in the budget for a customer event, and I’m

concerned that we need that money for employee

training. What are our options?” This will engage

your colleague in problem solving, which is inher-

ently collaborative instead of combative.

• Use hypotheticals. Being contradicted doesn’t

feel very good, so don’t try to tit-for-tat your

counterpart, countering each of his arguments.

Instead, says Davey, use hypothetical situations

to get him imagining. “Imagining is the opposite

of defending, so it gets the brain out of a rut,” she

says. She offers this example: “I hear your concern

about getting the right salespeople to pull off this

campaign. If we could get the right people . . . what

could the campaign look like?”

Watch your body language—

and your counterpart’s

The words coming out of your mouth should match what

you’re saying with your body. Watch your facial expres-

sion and what you do with your arms, legs, and entire

body. A lot of people unconsciously convey nonverbal

messages. Are you slumping your shoulders? Rolling

your eyes? Fidgeting with your pen?

Increase your awareness of the energy you give off. In

Amy Jen Su and Muriel Maignan Wilkins’s book, Own

the Room, they offer six places where nonverbal mes-

sages are communicated through body language: your

posture; eye contact; the natural gestures you make typi-

Have a Productive Conversation

cally with your hands; the tone, tempo, and timing of

your voice; your facial expressions; and how you occupy

the space around you (see table 6-1).

Through each of those points, you signal to others

what you’re thinking and feeling. Jen Su and Maignan

Wilkins use the acronym CENTER to help people re-

member these six cue points. Table 6-1 shows different

signals you might be sending depending on whether

you’re in an aggressive, conﬂ ict-seeking mode or a more

passive, conﬂ ict-avoidant mode. Reviewing the table and

considering the questions will help you maintain body

language that’s as open as the language you’re using.

During your conversation, pay attention to each

of these areas and take stock of the overall impression

you’re giving. Do the same for your counterpart. Watch

what she’s conveying through her body language. Again,

her nonverbal cues may be sending a different message

than what she’s articulating. If that’s the case, or if you’re

noticing any body language, ask about it. For example,

you might say, “I hear you saying that you’re ﬁ ne with

this approach, but it looks as if maybe you still have some

concerns. Is that right? Should we talk those through?”

Change the tenor of the conversation

Sometimes, despite your best intentions and all of the

time you put into preparing for the conversation, things

veer off course. You can’t demand that your counterpart

hold the discussion exactly the way you want.

If things get heated, don’t panic. Take a deep breath,

mentally pop out of the conversation as if you’re a ﬂ y

on the wall, and objectively look at what’s happening.

TABLE 

Manage your body language during a conﬂ ict

What others see when

you’re avoiding conﬂ ict

What others see when you’re

being aggressive

Questions to ask yourself to

keep your body language open

Core posture  Slouched, loose posture  Propped, tense, wound-up posture  What happens to your core

posture? Are you standing tall?

Slouching?

Eye contact  Not holding eye contact  Intense eye contact  Do you hold eye contact or lose it?

Natural gestures  Nervous gestures, ﬁ dgeting  Using aggressive gestures like

ﬁ nger-pointing

 What gestures do you start to

make? What do you do with your

shoulders, hands, and feet?

Tone, tempo, timing  High pitch or soft volume

 Use of ﬁ ller words such as um,

ahs, or stutters

 Fast pace or loud volume

 Judgmental or condescending tone

 How does the tone, tempo, and

timing of your speech change?

Expressions of the face  Wide, deer-in-headlights eyes  Furrowed brows  What expressions do you make

with your face?

Regions and territory  Shrinks down, doesn’t take up

space or ﬁ ll the room

 Takes up too much space at the

table or in the room

 How do you take up space in the

room?

Source: Adapted from Amy Jen Su and Muriel Maignan Wilkins, Own the Room: Discover Your Signature Voice to Master Your Leadership Presence (Boston: Harvard Business Review Press,

2013).

Have a Productive Conversation

You might even describe to yourself (in your head) what’s

happening: “He keeps returning to the fact that I yelled

at his team yesterday.” “When I try to move the conver-

sation away from what’s gone wrong to what we can do

going forward, he keeps shifting it back.” “Every time I

bring up the sales numbers, he raises his voice.”

Then state what you’re observing in a calm tone. “It

looks as if whenever the sale numbers come up, you

raise your voice.” Suggest a different approach: “If we

put our heads together, we could probably come up with

a way to move past this. Do you have any ideas?”

“Stepping back and explicitly negotiating over the pro-

cess itself can be a powerful game-changing move,” says

Weiss. If it seems as if you’ve entered into a power strug-

gle in which you’re no longer discussing the substance

of your conﬂ ict but battling over who is right, step back

and either return to your questions above or talk about

what’s not working. Say, “We seem to be getting locked

into our positions. Could we return to our goals and see

if we can brainstorm together some new ideas that might

meet both our objectives?” See the sidebar “Phrases That

Productively Move the Conversation Along.” Returning

your counterpart to his original goal may be enough to

get the conversation back on track.

When to Bring in a Third Party

There are times, however, when you’re getting nowhere

with your counterpart and, even when you follow the

principles above, you’re still not able to have a productive

discussion. Some problems are too entrenched, compli-

cated, or emotional to sort out between two people. Or

Managing a Conﬂ ict

PHRASES THAT PRODUCTIVELY MOVE THE

CONVERSATION ALONG

• “You may be right, but I’d like to understand

more.”

• “I have a completely diﬀ erent perspective, but

clearly you think this is unfair, so how can we

ﬁ xthis?”

• “Can you help me make the connection between

this and the other issues we’re talking about?”

• “I’d like to give my reaction to what you’ve said

so far and see what you think.”

• “I’m sensing there are some intense emotions

about this. When you said ‘X,’ I had the impres-

sion you were feeling ‘Y.’ If so, I’d like to under-

stand what upset you. Is there something I’ve

said or done?”

• “This may be more my perception than yours,

but when you said ‘X,’ I felt . . .”

• “Is there anything I can say or do that might con-

vince you to consider other options here?”

your counterpart is too inﬂ exible or unable to hear your

side, insisting that it’s her way or the highway.

The main indicator you may need outside help, says

White, is when it seems as if your counterpart is per-

petuating the conﬂ ict rather than trying to solve it. “She

Have a Productive Conversation

may be alternatively conciliatory and antagonistic. Every

time you seem to be making progress, she walks back

from the tentative agreement and accuses you of not ne-

gotiating in good faith,” she explains.

This is not a failure. “Someone who is not involved in

the conﬂ ict may be able to provide vital perspective for

both parties,” says Gerzon. Ideally, you’ll both agree that

a third party is necessary before going with this option.

But if you can’t reach agreement on anything else, this

might be difﬁ cult. In these cases, you may have to ask

someone else to get involved without your counterpart’s

permission.

Who you bring in will depend on the nature of the

conﬂ ict. Choose someone whom you both trust and can

rely on to understand the issues but also brings an out-

side perspective. It might be one or both of your bosses.

“For example,” says Ben Dattner, “if roles are poorly de-

ﬁ ned, a boss might help clarify who is responsible for

what.” If the conﬂ ict is over how people are rewarded,

you might turn to HR or a union representative. Dattner

shares another example: “If incentives reward individual

rather than team performance, HR can be called in to

help better align incentives with organizational goals.”

When you’ve exhausted all your internal options, or

if there is no one to appeal to, you might need a trained

mediator to help.

In the process of having a productive discussion with

your counterpart—expressing your point of view and

listening to hers—a resolution may naturally arise. It

Managing a Conﬂ ict

may be that there was a misunderstanding and now it’s

cleared up. Or perhaps after hearing your colleague out,

you realize you do agree with how she’s approaching the

project. Or as you talk through what her goals are, you

stumble upon a solution that would work well for both

of you.

If this doesn’t happen organically, you’ll have to more

consciously work toward a resolution that meets both

your and your counterpart’s goals.

SECTION THREE

Resolving a

Conﬂ ict

101

CHAPTER 

Get to a

Resolution and

Make a Plan

When addressing the conﬂ ict directly, the ﬁ nal step is to

broker a resolution between you and your counterpart.

Start by understanding what a resolution looks like.

Then with that goal in mind, take steps to narrow down

the options and make the ﬁ nal call.

What a Resolution Looks Like

The details of each speciﬁ c resolution will vary depend-

ing on the type of conﬂ ict you were having. With task

conﬂ ict, the resolution is likely to be an agreement about

what it is you want to accomplish—the stated objective

for the project you’re coleading or an agenda for the next

managers’ meeting. It will be something concrete that

you can write down. The same goes for a process conﬂ ict.

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

102

Ideally you’ll be able to document the process you’ll use

going forward—how to reach consensus before approv-

ing new projects or the sequencing for rolling out the

IT initiative. With status conﬂ ict, the resolution may be

reaching an understanding about who will lead a project

or whose team is ultimately responsible for the success

of the product launch.

Resolutions in a relationship conﬂ ict can be the most

difﬁ cult to broker and recognize, especially because there

are usually bruised feelings that take a while to heal. Of-

ten you might agree to each do something differently in

the future—he will not raise his voice when he disagrees

with you, and you will not run to your boss until you’ve

talked with your counterpart ﬁ rst.

But no matter what type of conﬂ ict you were engaged

in—relationship, task, process, or status—a resolution

needs to meet the same three criteria.

It satisﬁ es as many interests as possible

During your conversation, you spent a lot of time and

energy explaining your perspective and goals. You also

learned about your counterpart’s underlying interests.

Perhaps she wanted to be sure that her team was well

represented at an important presentation so that they

had an opportunity to show off their work, while you

wanted the presentation to go quickly and smoothly so

that there was plenty of time at the end for questions.

It’s possible—and preferable—that an agreement meets

each of those interests reasonably well. “The essence of

a resolution is that you get to what the underlying inter-

Get to a Resolution and Make a Plan

103

ests are and try to satisfy as many of them as possible,”

says Jonathan Hughes.

It’s fair and reasonable

“We all want a resolution that feels fair and reasonable

to everyone involved—and is defensible to others on the

outside looking in,” says Hughes. You should be able to

answer yes to the following questions: “Do I think this is

a reasonable solution?” “Does my counterpart?” “Can I

defend it to my boss or anyone else who cares about the

outcome?” We also want to feel as though we came to the

agreement by ourselves and weren’t pressured into con-

ceding or giving in. So both the ﬁ nal arrangement and

the process you used to reach it need to be fair.

The relationship is intact

If you reach a resolution that meets the business needs

and is fair and reasonable, but you end up hating each

other, then it’s hard to call that a success. You want to be

able to say that you maintained your relationship, or that

you even improved it. “The icing on the cake is if you can

honestly say to each other that you learned something

about each other in the process,” says Hughes, “and thus

that the next disagreement or conﬂ ict will be that much

easier to resolve together.”

How You Reach a Resolution

Arriving at a resolution that meets those three criteria

requires additional conversation, and it’s up to you and

your counterpart to come up with options. Be creative

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

104

and collaborative as you do that. Then evaluate the op-

tions you generated and make the ﬁ nal call together.

Be creative

Keep in mind your goal, and that of your counterpart,

and when all the data is on the table, offer different op-

tions that ideally meet both of your needs. Are there

ways to satisfy both of your interests and build on that to

discover new beneﬁ ts neither one of you envisioned on

your own? Consider a salary increase. You may be ﬁ ght-

ing for a 10% raise, while your boss thinks you deserve

7%. Instead of just duking it out over the exact percent-

age, ﬁ nd a way to include something in the raise that’s

valuable to both of you. Perhaps you can take on a new

project for your region that allows you to travel and get

exposure to more senior leaders. Taking a creative ap-

proach to the conﬂ ict, instead of focusing on and nit-

picking over a number, increases what you can both get

out of it.

Don’t get locked into your answer and his answer.

Proposing several alternatives helps the other person

see a way out, and it also signals humility, that you don’t

believe there’s just one way to resolve this dispute: your

way. Don’t offer what you originally came to the table

with, but use the information you gathered during your

conversation to come up with a better solution. There

are always additional ways of solving a problem. “When

you’re creative about how to meet your interests, you can

begin to imagine a third way that might meet your needs

well and work for both of you,” says Hughes.

Get to a Resolution and Make a Plan

105

Be collaborative

Brainstorm possibilities together. If you propose a po-

tential solution, ask for your counterpart’s input. Ask,

“What other ideas might you have?” and let him build

on your ideas or offer others. When you suggest a poten-

tial resolution, don’t just say, “Do you like it?” but invite

criticism. Weiss suggests you ask “What would be wrong

with this solution?” That better helps you understand his

viewpoint and encourages him to also be creative.

Consider what you can oﬀ er

If you’ve proposed a solution that potentially puts the

other person in a difﬁ cult spot or takes something away

from her, ask yourself: Is there something I can give

back? says Holly Weeks. If, for instance, you’re telling

your boss that you can’t take on a particular assignment,

propose a viable alternative, such as someone else who

can ﬁll the role equally well. “Be constructive,” says Jean-

François Manzoni. Or if you’re laying off someone you’ve

worked with for a long time, “you could say, ‘I have writ-

ten what I think is a strong recommendation for you;

would you like to see it?’”

Decide how to evaluate the possibilities

With several options on the table, begin evaluating them.

Agree on the criteria you’ll use to select the best option.

Perhaps you’ll ask a disinterested third party to weigh

in on your resolution and see if it looks fair. Or maybe

you’ll agree on certain requirements that the resolution

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

106

must meet, such as mitigating the risk of a lawsuit or be-

ing cost- effective. “It’s often easier to agree on the crite-

ria than the solution,” says Hughes. These can be hard

to establish in a relationship conﬂ ict, however. In those

situations, fairness is usually the standard against which

to evaluate possibilities.

This may all sound rational and reasonable, and

maybe collaborating on a resolution will be exactly that.

But just as emotions were a key element of the conﬂ ict

up to this point, they’re likely to be present in this part

of the conversation as well. Continue to remain calm, ac-

knowledge and label your feelings, and allow for vent-

ing when necessary. All the tips you learned for having

a productive conversation in the previous chapter will

continue to be useful here.

Make the ﬁ nal call

Often with task, process, and status conﬂ ict, there is a

tangible decision to make. Are we going to ﬁ nish this

project in six months or one year? Can we fund this

project and at the same time put a small amount of

money toward another one that we’ll plan to fully fund

next year? Using the criteria you’ve laid out and the op-

tions you’ve developed, you and your counterpart must

agree on which path to pursue and under which ar-

rangements. Other times there is no decision to make,

especially with relationship conﬂ ict. In those cases,

“sometimes just talking it through will resolve it,” says

Hughes. Once you understand your counterpart’s per-

spective, you may not feel so bad about the way he

spoke to you in that meeting. And once he sees that you

Get to a Resolution and Make a Plan

107

misinterpreted his reaction, he may be more forgiv-

ing of the fact that you left the room before the meet-

ing was over. “No one’s at fault,” says Hughes. “No one’s

the bad guy. And accepting that can take the sting out of

the ﬁ ght.”

Document the agreement

This doesn’t have to be formal, such as a contract. Cap-

ture your discussion in an email and send it with a quick

note that asks, “Did I get this right?” Conﬁ rming what

you’ve agreed to ensures you’re on the same page and

gives you both something to refer to should any simi-

lar issues arise again. You want to do this as soon after

your conversation as possible—deﬁ nitely within a day or

two. Leaving it any longer risks that you’ll misremember

what you both agreed to.

When to Accept That There

Won’t Be a Resolution

There are some situations in which, try as you might,

you won’t reach a resolution. You’ve engaged in a con-

structive discussion and come up with alternatives for

resolving the particular conﬂ ict you’re having, but you

can’t make the ﬁ nal call on which option to go with. It

may be that your counterpart insists on one solution and

you’re unwilling to go with that one. Perhaps you have

your heart set on a particular option, but it doesn’t meet

your counterpart’s interests. Be realistic with yourself

about what’s possible so that you don’t bang your head

against the wall trying to force a solution when there

isn’t one.

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

108

If you can’t reach a resolution, there are three things

you can do:

• Take a break. Sometimes, if you step away from

the conversation, let the emotions cool down a

little, and return to it later, you might see a dif-

ferent option neither of you thought of before or

an existing possibility may look more appealing

to one or both of you. This is an especially good

tactic if you feel bullied into accepting an outcome.

“When someone threatens us, we tend to make

irrational decisions, so we need time to ﬁ gure out

whether this is, in fact, something we are willing to

accept, or whether it’s worse than no agreement,”

says Judith White. “This will give you the time to

consider the offer and save you from one of three

mistakes: accepting something you should have

rejected; rejecting something you should have

accepted, or blowing up at the other person and

thereby blowing up any hope of a mutually agree-

able solution.”

• Appeal to someone more senior. You can escalate

the situation to a person in a higher position. You

might say to your boss or your counterpart’s boss,

“We’re in this ﬁ x and we need your help to make

the decision.” You might ask that person to “decide

for the two of you, to intervene and offer another

solution, or to change one of the constraints, such

as giving you more resources or extending a dead-

line,” explains Hughes.

Get to a Resolution and Make a Plan

109

• Get your needs met another way. In lieu of settling

your conﬂ ict, what can you do instead? If you and

a supplier disagree on the terms of your contract

renewal, can you ﬁ nd another supplier? Or stay

with this supplier, but escalate the conﬂ ict to his

boss? Or you could hold out for a few months and

see if the deal gets better with time. If you’re in a

dispute about how much of a raise you’ll get, and

it doesn’t look as if HR is going to give you what

you asked for, can you look for a different job or go

freelance?

Learn from Your Experience

Once you’ve reached a successful conclusion, it’s worth-

while to reﬂ ect and consider what went well and what

didn’t, says Manzoni. “Why did you have certain reac-

tions, and what might you have said differently?” Weeks

also recommends observing how others successfully

cope with these situations and emulating their tactics.

The goal is to constantly improve your approach to con-

ﬂ ict by integrating new tactics and strategies. Talk with

your boss, a mentor, or a trusted colleague about what

you’ve learned and ask them to remind you and hold you

accountable so that you don’t repeat the same mistakes.

It’s also a good time to talk with your counterpart

about what you’ll do if you enter into a conﬂ ict again.

What do each of you want to do differently? How can

you make sure that future disagreements don’t turn

ugly? Document these ideas (again an email is ﬁ ne) so

that you can both refer back to them if you need to.

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

110

Once the content of the disagreement has been solved,

think about what other reparations you might need to

make. Even if your dispute was purely task related or

process related, be mindful that your relationship may

have suffered. Restoring trust and accepting the situa-

tion are critical parts of moving on.

111

CHAPTER 

Repair the

Relationship

Whether you’re shaking hands after a productive con-

versation, carrying on business as usual, returning to

your desk knowing someone intervened on your behalf,

trying to accept that there will be no resolution, or plot-

ting how to ﬁ nd an entirely new job, it’s important to put

the conﬂ ict behind you and move on. And even if you’ve

come to an agreeable resolution, sometimes the relation-

ship needs to be mended. There may be some lingering

resentment or you or your counterpart may be anxious

that the situation will happen again.

If you opted to do nothing, you still need to think

about the relationship. You don’t want to harbor nega-

tive feelings toward the person, especially if you were the

one who decided against other options for addressing

the disagreement. “You need to tell yourself: ‘I chose to

let this go. I’m not going to ruminate or retaliate because

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

112

it was my decision to let go,’” says Jeanne Brett. Even if

you didn’t make the decision about how to handle the

situation, it’s still in your best interest to move past it.

Putting your relationship back on track requires ad-

dressing your needs, those of your counterpart, and those

of the people who may have been party to the conﬂ ict.

Pause and Reﬂ ect

You might feel amped from the tension even after it’s

been resolved, or plain exhausted from the mental gym-

nastics of trying to remain calm, listen, and balance your

goals with your counterpart’s all at the same time. Or

perhaps you’re worn out from working hard to let the

conﬂ ict go. No matter what you’re feeling, take a mo-

ment to consider what you’ve accomplished: Not only

did you make it through the conﬂ ict in one piece, but you

made smart choices about how to handle it, remained

ﬂ exible, and pushed yourself to stay present. Well done.

Now consider taking a break from work. After a heated

discussion, you may want to take a walk outside, go to

the gym, or meet up with a friend. Or you may just want

to go home and get a good night’s sleep. Chances are

that with a little time and space, any lingering negative

energy will dissipate and you’ll return to work feeling

clearer and more focused.

Look Forward

Although you’ll want to reﬂ ect and learn from what hap-

pened, resist the tendency to analyze every detail of the

conﬂ ict. Who said what? Why did they say it? That isn’t

productive. “Lots of people think that it’s only by under-

Repair the Relationship

113

standing the past that we get beyond it. But what you

focus on is what grows,” Susan David says. So contem-

plate what’s worked well previously, what you like about

the person, and what you want from the relationship.

“Take a solution-focused approach, not a diagnostic

one,” she says. (See the sidebar “A Success Story” for one

example of how a common purpose helped two people

move beyond their conﬂ ict.)

Rebuild Rapport

If the relationship has suffered some damage, don’t ex-

pect it to change overnight. “The real shifts in relation-

ships happen less in those watershed moments and more

in your everyday actions,” David explains. Sitting down

and talking is helpful, “but that’s not where the work

really happens. It’s more subtle than that.” Make an ef-

fort to change the tone of your everyday interactions. Say

hello before you sit down at your desk in the morning.

Offer to buy him a coffee. Small gestures of civility go a

long way.

Reconnect Through Questions

One way to rebuild rapport is to ask questions, says Car-

oline Webb, author of How to Have a Good Day: Har-

ness the Power of Behavioral Science to Transform Your

Working Life. “It’s inherently rewarding to people to get

to talk about themselves or share their opinions.” The

trick is to move beyond more typical, factual questions

like “When’s the presentation due?” to what Webb calls

“quality questions” that go beyond exchanging basic in-

formation. Instead of asking “How was your weekend?”

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

114

A SUCCESS STORY

Rachel had an ongoing conﬂ ict with her coworker, Pia.

At the consultancy where they worked, it was Rachel’s

job to sell projects to clients, but it was Pia’s role as

the business director to vet the sales proposals and

pricing. Whenever Rachel sent Pia a draft for review,

Pia would increase the prices that Rachel was pitching.

She’d send back a curt email that explained the prices

were too low and told Rachel to ﬁ x them, which Rachel

did. As a result, Rachel lost potential sales.

Because she didn’t know Pia personally (she had

met her only once at a team retreat), Rachel went to

her boss, the regional manager, to explain that Pia

was being unreasonable about the prices and rude to

her. “I had targets I was supposed to meet, and every

timePiacaused me to lose a sale, I was getting angrier

and angrier,” Rachel says. But Rachel’s boss was not

receptive to her appeals. “She told me that she trusted

Pia’s judgment implicitly and that I just had to ﬁ nd

clients who were willing to pay the premium price,”

shesays.

The circumstances were starting to aﬀ ect Rachel’s

morale, not to mention her sales performance. She

didn’t enjoy going to work anymore because she wasn’t

making progress toward her goals. She cringed every

Repair the Relationship

115

time she got an email from Pia. One day, after learn-

ing that she’d lost yet another potential sale, she

calledPia.

Rather than criticize her, though, Rachel explained

how upset she was and the impact the situation was

having on her: “I wanted to let her know that I really

couldn’t keep working like this, having strained rela-

tionships with my colleagues, bringing in clients and

losing them again and again.”

Pia was receptive to what she had to say. “She heard

me out and said she wasn’t aware of how she was com-

ing across.” It turned out that Pia was also frustrated

by the lack of sales and her performance was also be-

ing aﬀ ected. “This gave us a common purpose to ad-

dress,” Rachel says. So the two of them switched into

problem-solving mode. How could they both do their

jobs and close the deals together? “She taught me how

she did the pricing, and we reached a compromise on

what could be quoted,” Rachel says.

Pia and Rachel ended up closing several big deals

together. “We weren’t best buds, but we didn’t have

any further disagreements either,” she says. Both

women eventually left the company, but they still keep

in touch.

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

116

ask what your counterpart did speciﬁ cally and follow up

with something like, “That’s interesting. What led you to

do that?” If you don’t have a personal relationship, ask

questions that signal you value his opinion: “How did

you think that meeting went?” “What are you working

on at the moment?” The goal with these questions is to

create what Susan David calls “a shared psychological

space.” Make it less about you and more about “creating

a connection,” she advises.

Reestablish Reciprocity

You’ll also want to restore trust if it was broken. One

smart way to do that, Brian Uzzi says, is to “offer things

to the other person without asking for anything in re-

turn.” Propose taking on a small project she hasn’t been

able to get to. Or bring her lunch one day. This will acti-

vate the law of reciprocity and restore the give-and-take

of your previous relationship. But don’t verbalize what’s

taking place. “That will get you into the tight accounting

system of who’s doing what for whom,” warns Uzzi. Keep

your word, too. “Being true to the things you’ve offered

will continue to deepen the relationship and make sure it

doesn’t slip back into mistrust,” says Uzzi.

Apologize

“You don’t have to be completely at fault to say you’re

sorry or show some penance,” says Adam Galinsky. It’s

rare that a conﬂ ict is completely one-sided, so chances

are that you contributed to the situation in some way.

Apologize for your part and express genuine regret that

the situation occurred (only if you feel it). Doing this will

Repair the Relationship

117

often elicit a similar expression from your counterpart.

But don’t expect that. You don’t want to resent the per-

son if she doesn’t apologize, too.

Focus on Commonalities

During the course of your conﬂ ict, you likely had dis-

agreements that emphasized how different you were

from one another. This can push you apart. Webb says

that “if we see someone as part of our in-group, we’re

more likely to feel empathy for them and not see them

as a threat.” And fortunately, “it takes very, very little to

perceive someone is like you.” Find something you agree

on. Perhaps it’s the common ground you identiﬁ ed be-

fore your discussion or something as simple as a shared

dislike of the new printer. If this is someone you’ve had

a long-standing relationship with, talk about projects

you’ve worked on together that went well. Reminisce

about things you’ve done in the past. Consider paying

the person a compliment or asking about his pet. “Flat-

tery—no matter how ludicrous it is—always works,” says

Webb.

Spend More Time Together

“One of the best ways to repair a relationship is to work

on a project that requires coordination,” says Bob Sut-

ton, a Stanford University management professor. This

seems counterintuitive, since you may be sick of each

other at this point. “Over time, if you work together

closely, you may come to appreciate your colleague more

and perhaps even develop some empathy,” he says. You

may discover there are reasons for your counterpart’s

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

118

actions: stress at home, pressure from his boss, or maybe

he’s tried to do what you’re asking for and failed. Spend-

ing more time with him will also grant you the opportu-

nity to have more-positive experiences.

Involve Other People

It’s likely that throughout the conﬂ ict, you turned to

other people for advice and commiseration. Your at-

tempts to repair the relationship won’t be successful if

those people aren’t included. “You need to get any in-

volved third parties on board to ﬁ x it and keep it healthy,”

says Uzzi. Explain to your conﬁ dants that you’re work-

ing on the relationship and that you’d appreciate their

support in making it work. You might say: “I know How-

ard and I have been at odds over the past few weeks,

and you’ve heard an earful from me. I want to let you

know that we’ve sorted through our problems, and I’m

determined to make our relationship work. It’d be great

if you could help by calling me out if I start to complain

again.” This helps not only you but those around you as

well. You’re contributing to an ofﬁ ce or team culture that

allows for conﬂ ict to happen. “You’re showing that it’s

safe to disagree,” says Annie McKee. “It’s not enough to

deal with conﬂ ict well; you have to make sure everyone

knows it was dealt with well.”

Consider Providing Feedback

This isn’t always possible, but if you’ve directly addressed

the conﬂict and you’ve reached a resolution, you might

want to give your colleague some feedback about the

process. You can share observations with the intention of

Repair the Relationship

119

improving how you interact in the future. It may be that

how your counterpart behaved with you is something

that regularly gets in her way as a professional. “Don’t

assume the person knows how she is coming across,” says

Sutton. This isn’t a diatribe about everything she did to

annoy you—that will just pull you back into the fray. Fo-

cus on behaviors that she can control. Describe how they

affected you and your work together with the aim of sup-

porting change. Your carefully framed feedback can help

her develop greater self-awareness and increase her ef-

fectiveness. And of course, you also need to be open to

hearing feedback yourself. If you’re seeing some things

that your counterpart might change, she’s liable to have

her own observations to share with you.

However, weigh this option carefully. Daniel Gole-

man, author of Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Mat-

ter More Than IQ, says whether you give feedback “de-

pends on how artful you are as a communicator and how

receptive they are as a person.” If you feel your counter-

part might be open and you can have a civilized conver-

sation, then go ahead. But if this is a person you suspect

will be vindictive or mad, or will turn it into a personal

conﬂ ict, don’t risk it. You’ll be back to where you started.

For most of us, the word conﬂ ict conjures up a difﬁ cult

struggle: We want people to like us, but we also want to

get our way. It would be ideal if our colleagues always

saw the brilliance in our ideas, gave us the resources

we asked for, completely agreed with us on the best

way to run the business, and still adored us at the end

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

120

of the day. But work is not a perfect place. Fortunately,

it doesn’t have to be. And when we ﬁ ght with people at

work, it doesn’t have to be scary or threatening. “Going

through difﬁ cult experiences can be the makings of the

strongest, most resilient relationships,” says David. We

make it through, and in the process, we learn about each

other, and ourselves, as we make the next conﬂ ict less

likely to occur or at least easier to manage.

121

CHAPTER 

Navigate

Common

Situations

For every conﬂ ict you encounter, you’ll tweak your ap-

proach depending on the circumstances. But there are

some speciﬁ c situations that commonly occur.

This chapter will walk you through the following

challenges:

• You’re ﬁghting from afar

• Your counterpart is passive-aggressive

• Your colleague goes over your head

• You’re caught in the middle of two warring

colleagues

• You’re mad at your boss

• You’re dealing with a bully

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

122

• Your counterpart is suffering from a mental illness

• You manage two people who hate each other

• Your team turns on you

• You’re ﬁghting with someone outside the ofﬁce

Knowing a bit more about why these situations hap-

pen can help you to better tackle them.

You’re Fighting from Afar

The situation

You’re coleading an important project with your

London-based colleague, and his emails have turned

snarky. You were initially debating when the project

should launch, but now he’s sending you emails with just

a “?” in them if you don’t respond within the hour. Since

you’re based in Hong Kong, that means you’d have to

be up at midnight to receive his “urgent” 5 p.m. emails.

He seems really mad, but who can tell, since you’re just

reading his words on a screen.

Why it happens

“Task-related disputes can more quickly devolve into

relationship conﬂ icts when there’s no face-to-face con-

tact, which helps to accelerate empathy,” says Keith

Ferrazzi, who studies virtual teams. A study by Syra-

cuse’s Kristin Byron showed that using email generally

increases the likelihood of conﬂ ict and miscommunica-

tion. Cultural differences may also be contributing to

Navigate Common Situations

123

the problem if you and your colleague are from different

countries.

What to do about it

“The good news is that bad relationship conﬂ icts don’t

occur as often because virtual team members are typi-

cally focused more on their work and less on interper-

sonal issues and ofﬁ ce politics. Hence, bad blood is less

likely to develop between coworkers,” explains Ferrazzi.

Still, it can be harder to solve these conﬂ icts when they

do arise because you don’t know how the other person

is reacting. Is he opting to do nothing and set aside his

feelings, or is he actually stewing?

Assess your options

The approaches you might use for navigating conﬂ ict

take on a different ﬂ avor when you work far apart. The

do-nothing option can work well when you don’t have

to see your colleague every day; you may be able to get

over the conﬂ ict more easily by not addressing it. Or you

can indirectly address it by asking someone at your col-

league’s location to talk with her. Also, exiting the rela-

tionship can be easier in these situations because you

can ask to work with someone else on the team, or you

may be able to go around the person and work with her

boss.

Move the conversation to a better medium

As discussed in chapter 5, “Get Ready for the Conver-

sation,” arguing through email can be tough, but some-

times that’s your only form of communication. “People

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

124

often behave with far less restraint in a virtual environ-

ment than in the physical world—a phenomenon that

psychologists call the ‘online disinhibition effect,’” says

Ferrazzi. And it’s just too difﬁ cult to interpret what’s re-

ally going on. If you’re arguing via email, stop. Pick up

the phone and call your colleague, or schedule a time to

do a video call.

Get to know how your counterpart works

Understanding your counterpart—his approach to con-

ﬂ ict, his goal in the conversation, and so forth—is central

to successfully navigating a conﬂ ict. But when you work

in different ofﬁ ces, you need to take this task a step fur-

ther. Do you know how the other person works? Are the

tools and processes you use compatible? Pamela Hinds,

who studies dispersed teams, says that when people

share these kinds of details, or at least an understand-

ing of their contextual differences, there is less conﬂ ict.

“The challenge on global teams is that the contexts are

different—that’s unavoidable. But we found that as long

as team members understand what is different, they’re

less likely to blame one another for incompatibilities,”

she says. If possible, visit your colleague’s ofﬁ ce, and vice

versa, to get a sense of how he works. If you can’t do that,

spend extra time explaining your systems and processes,

noting similarities and differences.

Increase informal communication

Research by Mark Mortensen of INSEAD and Hinds

also showed that casual, unplanned communication dra-

matically reduces conﬂ ict when you’re not in the same

Navigate Common Situations

125

location. Take advantage of opportunities for informal

interactions. Keep your messaging app open to share

personal snippets or jokes throughout the day. Take vir-

tual breaks together, chatting on the phone while you

both sip tea. Or you might leave your computer cameras

on so that you can see each other throughout the day.

“These video links between ofﬁ ces create a shared space

and provide more opportunities for these spontaneous—

but often very productive—workplace conversations,”

says Mortensen.

Diane’s story

Diane started a new job in the US ofﬁ ce of an interna-

tional NGO. After several weeks of building a rapport

over email with Brigitte, a German colleague—and be-

lieving that they had started a friendship—Diane got

an email from Brigitte that said, “People here in Europe

are saying that you’re not right for your job.” Diane was

hurt and assumed that her colleague didn’t like her. Why

else would she say something so mean and in such an

abrupt way? But she didn’t want to jump to conclusions,

especially since she’d never met Brigitte in person. Diane

didn’t know anyone in Brigitte’s ofﬁ ce to turn to for ad-

vice or insights into Brigitte’s style or personality. She

opted to do nothing, ignore the email, and move on, but

after a few days, it was still bothering her. She set up a

Skype video call with Brigitte.

When the two connected, Diane was surprised to see

Brigitte smiling at her. Diane carefully broached the

subject of the email. “I told her I was taken aback by it

because I thought we had been getting along well,” she

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

126

says. Brigitte explained that it was precisely because they

were establishing a relationship that she’d told Diane

about what others were thinking. “She thought she was

helping me, giving me information that would be use-

ful as I tried to prove myself in the new role. She did it

so directly because that was an appropriate way to com-

municate in her culture, but I just misinterpreted her

intentions,” Diane says. The two women started turn-

ing on Skype when they got to the ofﬁ ce and would chat

throughout the day. It also gave others in the European

ofﬁ ce a way to get to know Diane better as they’d stop by

Brigitte’s desk to wave or say hello to Diane.

Your Counterpart Is

Passive-Aggressive

The situation

Your colleague says one thing in a meeting but then does

another. She passes you in the hallway without saying

hello and talks over you in meetings, but when you ask to

speak with her about it, she insists that everything’s ﬁ ne

and the problem is all in your head.

Why it happens

It’s not uncommon for colleagues to make a passive-

aggressive remark once in a while over a particularly sen-

sitive issue or when they’re not sure how to directly ad-

dress an issue. But persistent passive-aggressive behavior

that manifests itself in a variety of situations is a differ-

ent ball game. These individuals can be self- centered at

best and narcissistic at worst, says Annie McKee. “These

Navigate Common Situations

127

are people who will often do anything to get what they

need, including lie.” But it may not be all her fault, ei-

ther. In many organizations, direct, overt disagreement

is not allowed, so “some people have been trained to be

passive-aggressive by their cultures,” she explains.

What to do about it

Passive-aggressive people are not necessarily more en-

gaged in conﬂ ict than most, but they’re doing it in a

way that’s tough to deal with. It’s not as clean as the in-

direct approach described in chapter 2, “Your Options

for Handling Conﬂ ict,” because they’re not being honest

about their intentions. “Fighting with these people is like

shadow boxing,” says McKee. It’s best to do nothing and

work around them or to distance yourself (exit), if pos-

sible. Also, try the following suggestions.

Accept that your counterpart’s behavior

likely has nothing to do with you

It’s not in your head; it’s in hers. Recognize the behavior

for what it is, says McKee, but don’t spend too much time

psychoanalyzing her. Amy Jen Su and Muriel Maignan

Wilkins say, “You need all the energy you can muster as

a leader, so don’t waste an ounce of it trying to ﬁ gure out

why she acts this way with you.”

See through the behavior to the

source of the conﬂ ict

Instead of harping on how much she bothers you, fo-

cus on what’s causing the disagreement. Does she think

that the way you’re running the project isn’t working

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

128

( process conﬂ ict), but she hasn’t directly said that? Or

do you disagree about whether your team’s ultimate goal

is to increase revenue or boost brand recognition (task

conﬂ ict)? As discussed in chapter 1, “Types of Conﬂ ict,”

knowing what’s underneath the disagreement can help

to depersonalize it, and when passive-aggressive behav-

ior makes everything feel like a relationship conﬂ ict, un-

derstanding and labeling the real source can help you

move forward.

Focus on a common goal

You’ve thought about what your goal is and what you

suspect hers to be, but her behavior may prevent you

from establishing common ground. Instead, focus on

the objective you share with others, suggests McKee. If

your project is at risk of not getting completed on time,

that’s the problem you need to deal with, not her infu-

riating conduct. Sure, you may be tempted to vent with

others who also work with her, but limit those conversa-

tions. They aren’t professional or productive. After a few

minutes of complaining, redirect the discussion to your

work. You might say: “Enough about her. Let’s talk about

how we can get this project done.”

Enlist help from others

Amy Jen Su and Muriel Maignan Wilkins suggest you

enroll your team in keeping your passive-aggressive col-

league accountable. Have others conﬁ rm expectations

that you agreed on. “For example,” they explain, “if you’re

in a meeting discussing next steps, make sure everyone

articulates what they heard and verbally communicates

what they commit to in speciﬁ c terms (not just head

Navigate Common Situations

129

nodding).” Or you can send a follow-up email document-

ing who’s going to do what. “Form an esprit de corps

with your other colleagues,” suggests McKee. And since

your colleague is passive-aggressive with everyone, po-

litely ask others what coping mechanisms or tactics work

for them.

Darrell’s story

Darrell’s new coworker, Raquel, was turning out to be a

nightmare. Their boss had asked Darrell to show Raquel

how to complete several reports that she’d eventually

be responsible for, and when he sat down with her, she

acted like she already knew how to do them. “It was im-

possible since the reports were speciﬁ c to our organiza-

tion, but when I tried to point that out, she told me to

not get so worked up,” he says. “That was the ﬁ rst sign

that something was wrong.”

One day, Darrell overheard her telling their boss that

she was still waiting for him to train her on the reports.

He didn’t want to get defensive in front of his manager,

so instead he went to Raquel and tried to appeal to their

shared goal. “I told her that we both wanted her to be

able to take over the reports,” he says. He again offered to

show her, but she told him that she had it under control.

Since the direct approach wasn’t working, he decided to

go to their boss. “It wasn’t what I wanted. I really hoped

I could work it out with her, but she acted like nothing

was wrong every time I tried to address it,” he says. Dar-

rell explained his side to the boss. “I didn’t ask him to

talk to her because I thought that would make matters

worse, but I wanted him to know that what she was say-

ing wasn’t true.”

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

130

Darrell was extremely frustrated, but he didn’t see a

way out of the situation. He had to work with Raquel,

and she wasn’t changing her behavior. So he took the

do-nothing option and didn’t address it further, except

to calmly explain his side of the story whenever Raquel

told their boss a lie about him. “Luckily for me, I wasn’t

the only one whom she treated poorly. Two other peo-

ple in our department noticed the same kind of thing,

so we were able to commiserate,” he says. None of them

ﬁ gured out a way to get Raquel to stop lying, but they all

learned to laugh at the absurdity of her behavior. “I had

a choice to be angry at work every day or to shrug her

off.” Happily for Darrell, Raquel stayed at the company

for only a year.

Your Colleague Goes over Your Head

The situation

Your coworker comes to you with a new initiative and

asks for your help. You agree that his idea is worthwhile

but explain that you just don’t have the time or resources

to tackle it this quarter. After your conversation, he goes

behind your back to share his brilliant idea with your

boss. When your manager comes to you to ask why you’re

not helping your coworker, you’re embarrassed and in-

furiated. Not only has your coworker undermined your

authority, now your boss is questioning your decisions.

Why it happens

There are both practical and psychological reasons why a

colleague might try to sidestep you. Practically speaking,

Navigate Common Situations

131

he may want a different answer or outcome than you’ve

given him. Psychologically, it’s possible that he wants to

show that he has more clout or authority than you do.

What to do about it

You may be tempted to stomp over to the person’s desk

and read him the riot act. “You have to be a saint to not

be annoyed or stressed or nervous about something like

this happening,” says Caroline Webb. But, as with any

conﬂ ict, even one where you feel you’ve been slighted,

it’s better to take a more measured approach. Keep in

mind that some people don’t know that going over your

head may be frowned upon. In some cultures, it’s not. So

don’t make assumptions about the person’s intentions.

Instead, try the following approaches.

Question your assumptions

To help you keep your cool, Webb suggests you start by

sorting through what you actually know. You may think

your coworker went over your head but that’s not nec-

essarily true. Ask yourself what the facts of the situa-

tion are and try to strip your explanation of emotional

language. Rather than thinking, “He completely dis-

regarded my authority to get a different answer from

my boss,” tell yourself, “He had a conversation with my

boss about his initiative.” Focus on what you know. And

then ask yourself: What would be different ways to ex-

plain this situation? One might be that your coworker is

just out for himself, but another could be that your boss

asked him what exciting projects he was working on next

quarter. “Work out three or four different scenarios,”

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

132

suggests Webb, “that broaden your aperture and help

you question the assumption that they’ve been dastardly

or ill-intended.”

Find out more

As you think about what you know, also consider what

you don’t know. If you just heard about the conversation

through the rumor mill, ﬁ nd out what really happened.

You might go to your boss and ask in a neutral way about

what transpired: “Hey, I heard you and Carlos were talk-

ing about his new idea.” Take care to maintain a casual,

nonaccusatory tone so that your boss doesn’t think you’re

trying to start a feud.

Approach your colleague

If after gathering additional facts, you decide to directly

address the issue, start with your coworker. You’ll likely

need to have a conversation with your boss, too (more on

that later), but that discussion will go better if you can

report on how you handled things with your colleague.

Ask your coworker if you can talk—preferably in a pri-

vate room. Keep an open mind as you enter the conver-

sation, says Adam Galinsky. This is true anytime you di-

rectly address a conﬂ ict, but especially in a situation like

this when you likely feel put upon or upset. Remember

your goal, whether it’s to have a strong working relation-

ship, to restore trust, or to protect your time. Don’t go

into the conversation with the intention of sticking it to

your coworker. That’s just going to set you up for a battle.

Instead, be open to hearing what he has to say about the

situation and why he did what he did.

Navigate Common Situations

133

State what you know and how you feel

Begin by saying what you know and how it made you

feel. “Make it a straightforward discussion,” says Galin-

sky. Let the person know that you’re disappointed by

what he did but stay away from words like “angry” or

“betrayed.” That may be how you feel, but it’s going to

put your coworker on the defensive, advises Webb. In-

stead say: “I heard you talked to Roger about your ini-

tiative after we discussed it and that made me feel a bit

concerned that we’re not communicating well.”

Problem-solve, together

Once you’ve shared what you know and heard his per-

spective, decide together how to remedy the situation.

“Try asking them for their thoughts ﬁ rst, before build-

ing on their suggestions. Research shows that people feel

far more attachment to any idea that they’ve had a hand

in shaping,” explains Webb. So instead of saying, “Here’s

how we should handle this situation,” ask, “What do you

think would be the best way to address this, given where

we are now?” Once you’ve agreed on how to rectify the

current issue, discuss how you’ll handle similar situa-

tions in the future.

Clarify the lines of communication

Ideally, you’ll both agree that your coworker should

come directly to you next time and then actually follow

through on that. But if he’s not on board with that plan,

prevent this situation from recurring by showing him

that going over your head won’t be effective. Make clear

that you and your boss are in regular contact and if he

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

134

goes to your manager, you’re going to ﬁ nd out. You might

say something along the lines of, “I meet with Roger reg-

ularly to discuss our group’s priorities and he usually lets

me know if he gets requests from other teams.” You don’t

need to say this in a threatening way; think about it as

educating him on the lines of communication.

Repair your relationship with your boss

You may be ticked off that your boss didn’t redirect your

colleague to you and wonder if he has faith in your judg-

ment. And this breach in the chain of command may

have also annoyed your boss or caused him to question

your ability to do your job. So once you’ve settled things

with your colleague, talk with your boss about what hap-

pened, why it happened, and how to avoid similar situa-

tions in the future. Start by considering what you want

to get out of the conversation. Webb suggests you may

“want to come off as wise, thoughtful, and in control.”

Your goal here may be to restore your reputation or to re-

establish ground rules for communication. Then lay out

what you know (for a fact) and how it made you feel: “I

heard that Carlos talked to you about his initiative and

that made me concerned that I might be out of the loop.

Can I ask what happened or how you saw it from your

perspective?” Then it’s your job to listen. Once you’ve

heard his side of things, you might ask, “What can we do

differently when this happens in the future?” You can

gently suggest that next time your colleague goes to him,

he redirect him to you: “If Carlos comes to you again,

would you mind sending him to me so we can address

the issue without having to take up your time?”

Navigate Common Situations

135

Gina’s story

Gina was responsible for helping new employees get up

to speed on current processes and best practices for ini-

tiating sales with customers. She was training Dante,

who had been hired to work with their biggest customer.

Dante was more senior than Gina. “I could tell that he

wasn’t necessarily pleased to be taking direction from

me and had a general air about him that told me that he

didn’t think I could really teach him anything,” she says.

Dante wasn’t happy with the process and timeline that

Gina explained the company typically used with custom-

ers. He thought it was too strict and wanted to bypass

particular parts of the process, such as getting customer

signoff before sending initial samples, in order to speed

up the sale. So he went to Gina’s manager to get approval

to ship the samples.

Luckily, Gina’s manager reiterated the company’s

standard process and the reasons behind it. “If he had

said yes, it could have completely thrown off our time-

line and been a disaster,” Gina says. Then the manager

had a conversation with Gina about what had happened

with Dante.

Gina decided to talk with Dante directly, but she

wanted to be careful. “I knew that if I approached him

in a certain way, he could easily become defensive and

maybe even combative. I didn’t want to make any snap

judgments about why he did what he did.” While she ap-

preciated his desire to move things along more quickly,

she also knew that she had insight on why things were

done the way they were.

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

136

She asked Dante to sit down with her to review the

account once more. “I explained the processes thor-

oughly and stressed how important it was to follow the

guidelines—and included the reasoning behind each

step,” she says. She casually mentioned that their man-

ager had explained what he had tried to do and thanked

him for “trying to think outside of the box and see how

we could potentially get samples to the customer even

faster.” She was careful not to make it a huge deal and to

focus on the process conﬂ ict they were having. “I didn’t

make it personal,” she says. She ended the conversation

on a positive note too, offering to help Dante in any way

she could. Gina says this approach worked: The two had

a great working relationship after that point, and Dante

came to her—not their manager—with questions or

concerns.

You’re Caught in the Middle of

Two Warring Colleagues

The situation

Two of your coworkers just don’t get along. They ex-

change mean looks in meetings, and they both come to

you to complain about each other. You want to be sup-

portive, but you also don’t want to be seen as taking

sides.

Why it happens

We all want to have alliances at work—so when two peo-

ple are having a conﬂ ict, it’s not uncommon for them to

drag other people in. They may want validation of their

Navigate Common Situations

137

viewpoint or to demonstrate to the other person that

they have more allies. Conﬂ ict avoiders often tend to get

put in the middle because they generally don’t push back

when one coworker gossips about another.

What to do about it

When stuck between two adversaries, “people often ﬁ nd

themselves in over their head,” says Roderick Kramer, of

Stanford Graduate School of Business. “They think they

can intervene, make suggestions, feel good about them-

selves, and move the conﬂ ict forward in a constructive

way. But that’s not always possible.”

Stay out of it

Whether or not you engage will depend on how en-

meshed you already are in the situation. If you feel as if

you’re being used as a pawn in their war, draw the line

and choose to do nothing. This is particularly tough for

conﬂ ict avoiders to do, but try saying something such

as “I’m sorry that you two aren’t getting along, but I’d

really prefer to stay out of it.” If that feels too difﬁ cult

to do, try to ﬁ nd ways to spend less time with each of

them. After you’ve turned down a coffee break sev-

eral times, they may get the hint. “Remember that you

aren’t a psychologist or a mediator,” says Kramer. If the

situation is outside your comfort zone or you think the

disagreement is juvenile, there’s nothing wrong with

staying out of it. But always give one or both of your co-

workers a next step to take. Say, “I’m not sure I’m the

right person to help you with this, but you might want

to sit down together or with HR.”

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

138

On the other hand, if you want to lend a sympathetic

ear and think you can help them work through it, take

the next few steps.

Allow them to vent

It can be hard to listen to people complain about each

other, but sometimes that’s exactly what they need. By

allowing each of them to process the situation with you,

they may ﬁ gure out on their own what the source of their

conﬂ ict is and how they can sort it out between them.

If you’re worried that by hearing one person out, you’ll

upset the other, make an effort to get both sides of the

story. Go to the other person and ask, “What’s your take

on what’s going on between you and Harry?” This will

give you a fuller picture of the conﬂ ict without earning

you a reputation as a meddler. It will also equip you to

help them solve it.

Empathize

While listening to each colleague, show that you under-

stand how hard the situation is. You can say, “I’m sorry

this is happening” or “It’s tough when two people can’t

agree.” Stay neutral and speak from your own experi-

ence. Offer observations such as, “It seemed as if Jane

was stressed out and didn’t mean what she said” or “I

know that Joe is a direct person and can sometimes

come off as harsh.” If you’re being pushed to choose

a perspective, make it clear that you won’t: “You seem

hurt, but I can’t take sides because I have to work with

both of you.”

Navigate Common Situations

139

Oﬀ er advice—cautiously

Before you give your two cents, ask your coworkers if

they want your help. “We tend to offer unsolicited advice

because we think we know better,” says Anna Ranieri, a

career counselor and executive coach. But people might

not want your opinion, so start by saying something

like, “I’ve observed what’s happening between you two.

Would it be helpful to hear my take?”

Explain the impact of their ﬁ ghting

After you’ve demonstrated your concern, describe how

the conﬂ ict is affecting the team. Say something like,

“You two not getting along is distracting. We’ve got a lot

on our plates right now with the quarter closing soon,

so it’d be better if we were focused on getting the re-

ports done.” Or “I’m concerned that you’re setting a bad

example for the younger people on our team. They look

up to both of you, and when they see you treating each

other this way, they may think it’s OK to do the same to

others.”

Problem-solve together

Just as you would focus on the future if this were your

own conﬂ ict, help them do the same. Instead of offer-

ing concrete suggestions, help them ﬁ nd their own so-

lutions. Ask open-ended questions as discussed in chap-

ter 6, “Have a Productive Conversation.” In this situation,

those questions might sound more like “How do you

hope this will be resolved?” or “What do you want out of

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

140

your relationship with Greg?” Kramer says, “You should

be more in problem-solving mode than gossip mode.”

Gary’s story

Gary was planning a partner meeting to make decisions

about compensation. As the senior partner, it was his job

to set the ground rules for the sensitive discussion. Each

partner presented his or her accomplishments and prog-

ress against goals, then the other partners asked ques-

tions, typically polite requests for clariﬁ cation, before

deciding on that partner’s bonus for the year. If there

was a more serious issue, the partners usually brought it

up before the meeting so that it could be addressed out-

side of this formal setting.

Everyone knew that two partners, Susan and Robert,

had been at odds for some time, and each of them came

to Gary ahead of time to complain about the other. Su-

san felt as if Robert wasn’t pulling his weight at the ﬁ rm

and his compensation should reﬂ ect that. Robert said

that Susan was mistreating her team members, espe-

cially junior analysts whom she often had stay late at the

ofﬁ ce for no reason. He wanted her compensation to be

affected as well.

Gary heard them both out. He asked that they sort it

out between them in advance of the meeting. When they

came back a week later even more upset, he suggested

that the three of them sit down together and talk about

what could be done. He explained that if the two of them

couldn’t ﬁ gure out how to stop ﬁ ghting, they would have

to postpone the compensation discussion, which would

affect when the bonuses would get paid out. “But I didn’t

Navigate Common Situations

141

want—and I know they didn’t want—to air all of this in

front of the larger group,” Gary says. He then asked if

they wanted to know his opinion. They both said yes. He

suggested they should recuse themselves in the discus-

sion of each other’s compensation. “That way it was basi-

cally a wash for them,” he says.

At ﬁ rst, Susan was game and Robert pushed back. “He

wanted to say his piece in front of the group,” Gary says.

But Gary explained to him that the goal of getting the

discussion done was more important than his beef with

Susan. So when the group met, Susan and Robert sat out

for the discussion of each other’s performance and com-

pensation. “It was obvious to everyone in the room what

was happening and why, but we accepted that because

it let us get through the discussion with everyone saving

face,” he says. Susan and Robert never got along much

better, but because they saw that Gary was unwilling to

take sides, they stopped appealing to him.

You’re Mad at Your Boss

The situation

You did all the work on the unit’s big project, but your

boss took all the credit. The executive team patted him

on the back, and he didn’t say a word about the late

nights you pulled. You’re angry, but you want to broach

this sensitive issue with your boss productively.

Why it happens

“Your relationship with your boss is a signiﬁ cant pre-

dictor of your experience at work,” says Liane Davey. A

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

142

positive relationship is likely to lead to interesting as-

signments, meaningful feedback, and recognition for

your contributions, so you want things to go well. But

because of that desire, you may also hold your boss to a

higher, unobtainable standard.

What to do about it

Fighting with your manager, says McKee, “sparks a deep,

primal response: fear.” And for good reason. “Bosses

hold our lives in their hands—the keys to our futures,

not to mention our daily bread.” Given that, you could

do nothing and move on—as discussed in chapter 2, this

is a good option if you don’t think your boss will change

his ways or is unwilling to hear you. But if you’re worried

that your anger will only grow, you may want to take the

following steps.

Cool down

Remember the advice in chapter 6 about walking away?

You don’t want to say anything you don’t mean. First,

give yourself some time—wait a day or two. Your anger

may fade to the point where you’re willing to let the irk-

some behavior go. If not, you may decide to address the

conﬂ ict directly.

Show respect

This may be the last thing you want to do, especially

when you feel slighted, but your boss expects—and

hopefully deserves—your respect. You can still label your

disagreement as a relationship conﬂ ict, but before ex-

plaining what’s made you so mad, “assure your boss that

you respect him and his position,” says Joseph Grenny,

Navigate Common Situations

143

author of Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When

Stakes Are High. “When that sense of respect is secure,

you can venture into expressing your views openly and

honestly.” You might say, “I enjoy working for you, and I

know I have a lot to learn from you.”

Focus on the business needs, not yours

When you talk to your boss, you can point out how sur-

prised you were by what he did, but you’ll get further

with the conversation if you frame it in terms of your

goals. What’s best for the business? Where do your goals

align? Your boss may be more willing to change his be-

havior if you explain that not sharing the credit could

create a bottleneck because those above him think he’s

the only one who can get things done.

Explain your intent

As you would do any time you address conﬂ ict directly,

tell your boss what your objective is in giving him this

feedback. Do you want to show off the work of the team?

Are you concerned that you’ll become disengaged if your

work isn’t recognized? Grenny says that you can clarify

your intent by contrasting what you mean with what you

don’t mean. “I’d like to share a concern, but I’m worried

that it will sound as if I doubt your character. I don’t.

And yet I don’t think I’d be fully loyal if I didn’t share my

perspective. May I do so?”

Alina’s story

Alina’s company had an informal policy that it wouldn’t

start work with clients (especially new ones) before there

was a signed contract in place. Rodrigo, one of the ﬁ rm’s

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

144

partners, asked Alina to start working with a new client

before he’d gotten the contract ﬁ nalized. “It was a busy

time, and I was stretched incredibly thin, but the proj-

ect started moving forward pretty quickly,” she says. She

worked nights and weekends to keep up only to ﬁ nd out

that the client pulled out before the contract was signed.

Rodrigo sent an email letting Alina and the rest of the

team know. It ended with “Sorry about this!” which irked

Alina. “It seemed ﬂ ippant to me, and it was inadequately

matched to the suckiness of the situation,” she explains.

Rodrigo called her to talk through the logistics of how

to wrap up the work, but she didn’t feel ready to have the

conversation. “I wanted to be prepared, and I was afraid

I would talk about how personally annoyed I was when

really what bothered me was how much of the ﬁ rm’s

money was wasted,” she explains. She asked Rodrigo

if they could talk the following morning instead. She

thought about it that night and decided she wouldn’t be

able to let it go. Rodrigo might not change, but she really

needed to get it off her chest.

She knew that both she and Rodrigo were conﬂ ict

seekers, so she set up a full hour for them to talk. Then

she set the tone for the conversation. “I told him that my

pushing back on him was not because I didn’t respect

him. I did. He was amazing at client service. But I felt

as if it would be a disservice to him if I didn’t point out

why ignoring the policy was so bad.” At ﬁ rst, Rodrigo

was defensive, arguing about whether or not the con-

tract would’ve made a difference. After she let him vent,

he calmed down and vowed to be better about the con-

tracts in the future. He even asked her to keep him ac-

Navigate Common Situations

145

countable, refusing to do work for him if there wasn’t a

contract in place.

You’re Dealing with a Bully

The situation

Your colleague consistently undermines you in meetings,

withholds information you need to do your work, and

speaks badly about you. This isn’t just one jab on a bad

day; it’s persistent negative behavior over time. You feel

sick to your stomach whenever you see her name in your

inbox or hear her voice down the hall.

Why it happens

Research from Nathanael Fast, a professor at the Uni-

versity of Southern California’s Marshall School of Busi-

ness, proves a commonly held idea: People act out when

their ego is threatened. “We often see powerful people

behave aggressively toward less powerful people when

their competence is questioned,” he says. It’s not just

people in positions of authority who act this way. Who-

ever it is, chances are, she’s singled you out for this bully-

ing because she’s jealous that others like you or that you

have skills she doesn’t, says Gary Namie, the founder of

the Workplace Bullying Institute. You may also seem like

an easy target, particularly if she sees that you shy away

from conﬂ ict.

What to do about it

Just because you’re a victim doesn’t mean you can’t take

action. Try the following.

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

146

Understand the situation better

Being bullied can be downright painful. Stepping back

and looking at the situation can help give you some in-

sight into the dynamic between the two of you. Are you a

conﬂ ict avoider while she’s a seeker? Are your disagree-

ments mostly relationship conﬂ icts? Or are there ele-

ments of task conﬂ ict as well? Using the advice in this

book can give you some distance from the pain of the

situation and the emotional room to start to address it.

Stand up for yourself

Call out bad behavior when it happens. “I believe very

strongly in making immediate corrections,” says Michele

Woodward, an executive coach. “If someone calls you

honey in a meeting, say right then: ‘I don’t like being

called that. Please use my name,’” she says. If you’re un-

comfortable with a direct, public response, Woodward

advises saying something as soon as you’re able. After

the meeting, you could say, “I didn’t like being called

honey. It demeans me.” Show that there is no reward for

treating you that way. “The message should be: Don’t

mess with me; it won’t be worth your effort,” Namie says.

Enlist help

Talk to colleagues you trust and see what they can do,

even if it’s simply conﬁ rming your perspective. They

might stand up for you in a meeting, defending your

ideas or asking the bully not to call you honey. Or they

might go speak to the bully one-on-one and explain how

disruptive her behavior is to the larger group. This can

Navigate Common Situations

147

be especially helpful if your supporters have power over

the bully or the bully trusts them.

Know the limitations

If your colleagues’ interventions don’t help, escalate the

situation to someone more senior or to HR. Your objec-

tive is to get the bullying behavior to stop. But that’s not

always possible. “The only time I’ve seen bullies change is

when they are publicly ﬁ red. The sanctions don’t work,”

says Woodward. Instead, protect yourself. Perhaps take

time off from work. Or move on—when you’re in an abu-

sive situation at work, the most tenable solution may be

to leave, if that’s a possibility. The Workplace Bullying

Institute has done online surveys that show more people

stay in a bullying situation because of pride (40% of re-

spondents) than because of economics (38%). If you’re

worried about letting the bully win, Namie says, you’re

better off worrying about your own well-being.

Cedric’s story

Cedric took a new position at a veterinary clinic with the

intention of buying into the practice, which he did after

several months, becoming the business partner of the

owner, Ruth. A year later, after what seemed like a mi-

nor disagreement, Ruth stopped speaking to Cedric for

six weeks. When he confronted her, she told him she was

contemplating dropping him as a partner. Cedric was

shocked. He had taken out a loan to buy into the ﬁrm

and felt ﬁnancially stuck.

Cedric soon recognized a pattern in Ruth’s behav-

ior. She was a clear conﬂict seeker. Any time the two

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

148

had a conﬂict, no matter what the original source of

the disagreement (task, process), it immediately turned

personal. “If I disagreed, she would ice me out. If I

confronted her, she iced me out longer,” he says. He

eventually ﬁgured out that stroking her ego was more

effective. “You could ﬂatter her, tell her how great she

was, how well she did in a case, and she’d be back on

your side. I learned to do this sort of dance in order to

survive.”

But Ruth’s harsh behavior wore Cedric down. Things

got so bad at one point that she didn’t speak to him for

three months. He enlisted a professional coach, who

helped him see that Ruth was a narcissist and a bully

who was threatened by his skills. This gave him the

conﬁdence to set his limits: He told her he was looking

for someone to buy out his part of the business, and she

offered to do it. “It was the best thing I could’ve done,” he

says. “I wish I had left when she ﬁrst showed me who she

truly was.”

Your Counterpart Is Suﬀ ering

from a Mental Illness

The situation

You never know what frame of mind you’ll catch your fel-

low team member in. Sometimes when you ask him why

he didn’t respond to an email you sent, he snaps at you

and storms off. Other times, when coworkers challenge

his ideas, he laughs inappropriately. When he doesn’t

show up to meetings or get his share of the team’s work

done, you’re afraid to confront him because you have no

Navigate Common Situations

149

idea how he’ll react. You wonder whether there’s more

going on here than just a quirky personality—perhaps he

has a mental illness.

Why it happens

In 2014, the National Institute of Mental Health esti-

mated that 18.1% of adults in the United States had a

mental illness, most of whom didn’t have an ofﬁ cial di-

agnosis. With percentages that high, you’re likely to have

coworkers with some sort of mental illness—depression,

personality disorders, schizophrenia—“especially since

many of these issues don’t prevent people from working,”

McKee says.

What to do about it

We can’t account for our colleagues’ moods, nor should

we. “There are clues, however, that let us know that there

may be something more going on than a disagreement,”

says McKee. Your interactions or homework to better

understand your counterpart may reveal things such as

sudden changes in mood or communication style, per-

sonality, or personal habits, or social withdrawal—all of

which are indications that your coworker may have an

underlying mental health issue. Addressing the conﬂict

could be dangerous—to your and your coworker’s well-

being. Instead, do the following.

Look for patterns

Is his behavior often erratic? Do his regular actions seem

outside the norm? Don’t jump to conclusions. “Occasion-

ally people do things that others deem inappropriate,

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

150

but if it happens on a consistent basis or every time the

person feels threatened, it’s an indication that there’s a

larger issue,” says McKee.

Don’t diagnose

Although it’s helpful to recognize when something big-

ger might be affecting your colleague, don’t try to come

up with a speciﬁ c diagnosis. Chances are that you aren’t

trained to evaluate emotional or psychological problems.

“And we really don’t know if there’s truly something go-

ing on,” says Judith White. What you can do instead, sug-

gests White, is educate yourself about the symptoms you

may be able to observe in family, friends, and colleagues.

“The National Alliance on Mental Illness [https://www

.nami.org/] is a good resource for friends and family

members who either know or suspect mental illness,” she

says. This information can help you distinguish between

an isolated incident that may be safe to address and a

deeper problem that is better handled by a professional.

Don’t let the problem lie

You might be tempted to steer clear and exercise your

do-nothing option because you’re afraid or unsure about

what to do. Doing nothing may be the right approach to

the conﬂ ict but not necessarily to the person. It’s most

certainly a sensitive situation, but that doesn’t mean you

have to completely ignore it. After all, it may be hard for

this person to do his job if he can’t get along with people.

“Most job descriptions have requirements for ‘interac-

tion’ or ‘collaboration’ of some kind baked in, and if the

person can’t fulﬁ ll this aspect of the job, then it’s time to

Navigate Common Situations

151

step in,” says White. Indirectly addressing the conﬂ ict is

often the right approach here. White recommends ask-

ing your boss or HR for help with the problem, or reach-

ing out to your company’s employee assistance program,

if you have one.

Be compassionate

“Remember that everyone has a story,” says McKee.

Don’t judge what’s going on with your colleague. He

might be suffering from his behavior as much as or more

than you. If you have a close personal relationship and

you suspect there is an underlying health issue, gently

ask about what might be going on outside of work. But

don’t push. If he doesn’t want to talk, don’t force it.

Go by the book

Because of the sensitivity of the situation, this is not a

place to wing it. White says to follow any formal rules

your company has for resolving the conﬂ ict because in-

formal persuasion or negotiation is unlikely to work.

“Look up the legal or regulatory rules, and if they don’t

exist, then ﬁ nd out past precedent in your organization

and write it down,” says White. Then keep records of your

interactions. If the conﬂ ict escalates, you’ll be able to jus-

tify your actions to this person, and to any third parties.

Heather’s story

Heather was concerned about her fellow professor,

Jacques. “He had always been jovial, but his behavior

changed midway through the year,” Heather explained.

“We were coleading an independent study for ﬁ ve

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

152

students, and he basically stopped showing up,” she says.

Every time Heather tried to ask Jacques whether he had

read the students’ papers or was planning to come to the

next meeting, Jacques would snap and insist he was ﬁ ne.

“I felt bad for him, but I was also annoyed because I was

picking up his slack and I was already having a busy se-

mester, and here he is yelling at me,” says Heather. When

she realized that the direct approach wasn’t working,

Heather thought about doing nothing. She knew that

she could cover the class, and she hoped that after the

summer break, Jacques might return feeling better. “But

that didn’t feel right. I didn’t want to get him in trouble,

but there was clearly something wrong. He had become

a different person.”

Heather decided to ask for help. She went to their de-

partment chair and explained the situation, telling him

that some of the students had started to complain. The

chair worked with HR to talk with Jacques and convince

him to take a leave of absence. Heather found out a year

later that Jacques had been suffering from severe de-

pression. “I wasn’t surprised, but it explained a lot. I’m

glad I handled it the way I did. I tried to be as compas-

sionate as I could.”

You Manage Two People

Who Hate Each Other

The situation

As a manager you probably didn’t expect to play referee,

but two of your team members just aren’t getting along.

They won’t look at each other, they openly deride each

Navigate Common Situations

153

other, and they refuse to cooperate. How you can right

such a dysfunctional relationship?

Why it happens

Conﬂ ict, as discussed in chapter 5, is often based on the

fear of losing something—ego, respect, status. Your team

members may be insecure, anxious about their status in

the team, or worried about their jobs. Instead of han-

dling their emotions appropriately, they’re taking them

out on each other.

What to do about it

You have an obligation to help your team members. You

don’t have to hold their hands, but you do need to ex-

amine your role in the problem and offer suggestions for

moving forward.

Hear them out

Give each person a chance to explain his point of view.

First, sit down with each person one-on-one. “Redirect

comments that include assumptions about what the

other person is thinking or feeling,” Davey suggests. For

example, if he says, “She’s trying to destroy my credibil-

ity,” respond by reframing the idea: “We don’t know her

motive; I’m interested in how her behavior is being in-

terpreted by you. How do you feel when she disagrees

with you in front of the team?”

Determine if you’ve contributed to the problem

Make sure you haven’t set these two up for failure, sug-

gests Davey, by either being unclear about roles or

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

154

sparking unhealthy competition. Ask: Do they have a

clear understanding of what’s expected of them? Are

their metrics and rewards designed to promote col-

laboration rather than rivalry? If either answer is no, sit

them down to make expectations clear and rejigger their

goals so that they can work better together.

Manage your reaction

You may be fed up with these two. If you can’t be em-

pathetic, you won’t be able to help because your annoy-

ance is likely to further heighten the conﬂ ict. “Start with

the positive assumption that your direct reports are good

people experiencing something stressful,” says Davey.

This shift in mindset will help in the same way it does

when you’re addressing your own conﬂ ict (as discussed

in chapter 5). It will also make you calmer: a key compo-

nent of managing your emotions—and theirs.

Help them see the other side

Ask questions so that they can understand the other

person’s perspective. “How do you think she felt when

she joined a team of people who are older and more

experienced than she is?” “How might you help her get

her point across so that she doesn’t need to be so asser-

tive?” If there’s someone on the team they both get along

with, ask that person to serve as a bridge and raise each

other’s awareness about what the other is thinking.

Bring them together

After they’ve had a chance to vent and see the situation

from the other’s perspective, bring them together. Davey

Navigate Common Situations

155

suggests you start by saying, “I’ve been speaking with

each of you about my concerns over your strained rela-

tionship, and I was hoping you felt ready to talk directly

to each other.” Interject as little as possible in the conver-

sation, but when you know there is something that’s not

being said, provide a gentle nudge: “Heather, we talked

about your reaction to Tony’s tone of voice. Do you want

to share that with him?”

Work toward a shared agreement

Ask them each to make commitments about what they’ll

change. “Heather, what are you planning to do differ-

ently going forward? And Tony, how about you?” Then

tell them that you’d like to keep them accountable to

those promises. Document what they said they would

do differently and send it to both of them to conﬁ rm

agreement.

Focus them on work

Leadership professor Richard Boyatzis says the best

way to heal war wounds is to start working again. Give

them a relatively easy task to rebuild their conﬁ dence as

a team. As they restore their relationship, help them fol-

low Bob Sutton’s advice from chapter 8, “Repair the Re-

lationship,” about working together. Put them on proj-

ects that require deeper collaboration and give them the

opportunity to work through task or process conﬂ icts.

Prevent additional problems

Encourage your team members to handle issues them-

selves. Research by Grenny shows that top-performing

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

156

teams immediately and respectfully confront one an-

other when problems arise. “Not only does this drive

greater innovation, trust, and productivity, but it also

frees the boss from being the playground monitor,” says

Grenny. Let new team members know up front that you

expect them to hold you and others responsible. Call

out positive examples and be a good model yourself. If

people still come running to you whenever there’s a ﬁ ght,

refuse to get involved. If you’re not solving it for them,

they’ll ﬁ gure out how to do it on their own.

Marshall’s story

Marshall, the owner of an eco-lodge, employed four

managers including Helga, a German expat who ran the

front ofﬁ ce and oversaw the staff when Marshall was off-

site, and Carlos, a Belizean who was in charge of client

services. Helga was incredibly organized and meticulous

about her work. Carlos’s expertise was client service. “He

had an ability to make every guest feel as if he or she is

the ﬁ rst one to ever see a snake,” says Marshall.

But Helga and Carlos weren’t getting along. In fact,

Helga asked Marshall to ﬁ re Carlos because she felt he

wasn’t doing his job; he regularly forgot to do tasks and

was sloppy with his paperwork. She was frustrated and

felt as if she was working twice as hard as he was. Car-

los had also previously complained about Helga. He

resented her criticism and felt she was too cold to the

clients.

As Marshall saw it, they were both failing to under-

stand or appreciate each other’s talents. Marshall en-

couraged Helga to step back and look at the situation.

Navigate Common Situations

157

Carlos was failing to do part of his job description, but he

was invaluable to the lodge. Helga conceded that Carlos’s

job description should be changed so that he could live

up to expectations.

He spoke to both employees, explained why each

one was extremely valuable to the team, and asked

them to appreciate what the other brought. He asked

them to focus on the larger purpose and to put their

disputes behind them. With expectations reset, Carlos

and Helga found a way to work together by accepting

that they had completely different styles but both cared

ultimately about the same thing—making the lodge

successful.

Your Team Turns on You

The situation

Your team members disengage or stop coming to meet-

ings. They simply don’t do, or even refuse outright, what

you ask of them. They begin meeting without you. You

start to worry that you have a mutiny on your hands.

Why it happens

Your team may be upset about a decision you made (or

didn’t make) or fed up with you continually interrupting

them, taking credit for their ideas, or not going to bat

for them.

What to do about it

For a leader, this can be a disheartening and terrifying

experience, but it’s not irreparable. By being open to

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

158

what’s happening, listening to your team, and being di-

rect, you can regain the group’s conﬁ dence and your ef-

fectiveness as a leader.

Find out what’s going on

Is one person driving the negativity, or are the feelings

shared across the team? Are people taking issue with

your leadership, or is ﬁ ghting among team members

causing them to rebel against you? Ask direct and open

questions that get at the source of the conﬂ ict. It’s easiest

to do this in one-on-one meetings with team members

you trust most. But if they tell you that others have an

issue with you, ask them to send the others to talk to you

directly.

Name what’s happening

Once you’ve identiﬁ ed the source of the conﬂ ict, ac-

knowledge it with your team. “It seems as if you all are

upset with the way I’ve been gathering and incorporat-

ing your input into the new strategy. Is that right? Am

I missing anything?” Trying to gloss over a problem

can turn it into the elephant in the room. “If you’re pre-

tending that nothing’s wrong and the rest of your team

knows there is, it can be really problematic,” says Debo-

rah Ancona, an MIT professor. And while you may want

to follow the team’s lead in not directly addressing the

situation, when they’re letting the conﬂ ict seep out in

other ways, doing nothing isn’t a smart option.

Own the issue

No matter the cause of the problem, recognize the things

that became destructive under your watch. Publicly ac-

Navigate Common Situations

159

knowledge what you have done to contribute to the

problem, and explain what you’re going to do to address

it. “Great leaders are able to get up and say, ‘Thanks for

the feedback. I realize I haven’t been doing X. These are

the steps I’m taking to correct this, and I’d appreciate

feedback on how it’s going,’” says Ancona.

Get outside help if necessary

When a team is particularly deﬁ ant or upset, you may not

be able to resolve the conﬂ ict alone. Find a mediator—

either an outside coach or an uninvolved person from

another part of the organization—to get the issues out in

the open and negotiate a resolution. Typically you do this

when you’ve exhausted all options, as discussed in chap-

ter 7, “Get to a Resolution and Make a Plan,” but you may

need to go this route sooner because there are so many

people involved and you may not get the whole story as

the boss. Working with a coach can help you understand

why your style or approach is not effective with your team.

Katja’s story

Katja was ready to close her marketing company. The

business was doing OK, but there were some severe per-

sonnel problems: Morale was low, and her employees

were angry and resentful. “The soul of my business was

black,” she recalls.

When she looked honestly at the situation, she saw

that there wasn’t disagreement over task or process or

even status. It was pure relationship conﬂict. Her boy-

friend at the time convinced her to work with an ex-

ecutive coach before she truly called it quits. The coach

helped her to develop a plan to address the conﬂict. She

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

160

started by talking with members of her staff to ﬁnd out

what was going on. But every time she spoke to anyone,

they would claim they didn’t have an issue, but someone

else did. “Eventually, I started to realize that no one was

going to own up to the conﬂict, so I had to get it out in

the open.”

Katja requested that they start communicating di-

rectly. There couldn’t be any gossip if they were going to

turn things around and improve their relationships. She

also acknowledged her role in creating the destructive

atmosphere. She herself had gossiped on occasion, and

she knew she’d set a bad example. Once her employees

started having the difﬁcult conversations needed to re-

solve their conﬂicts with her and with one another, they

began to feel more united and committed. Soon they re-

alized there was pent-up client demand they hadn’t been

able to serve because they were so wrapped up in what

was going on inside the business. In the next six years,

the company’s revenue tripled.

You’re Fighting with Someone

Outside the Oﬃ ce

The situation

Your vendor has missed several deadlines, and you’re

getting nervous the IT project isn’t going to get done on

time. But your contact there isn’t answering your calls or

emails. You’re wondering if it’s time to switch vendors.

Why it happens

When you’re interacting with people in other organi-

zations—a customer, supplier, a partner—you typically

Navigate Common Situations

161

know little about them. Without the shared context of

an ofﬁ ce, colleagues, and other commonalities, it’s easy

for you and an external partner to misunderstand each

other or misinterpret intentions.

What to do about it

Whether the person is a vendor who has missed several

deadlines, a customer who complains about a rise in

your product’s price, or a colleague from a partner orga-

nization who is accusing you of not holding up your end

of an agreement, approach the issue in the same way.

Don’t overcompensate

It’s tempting to treat the situation differently than ﬁ ght-

ing with someone inside your organization. You might

think, “This is a key supplier. I should do whatever it

takes to smooth over this disagreement” or “They’re just

a vendor. We can ﬁ nd a new one next week.” You may feel

less invested in the relationship because there are 10 ven-

dors who want your business. But although you may have

lots of alternatives, know what it would mean to pursue

them. Sometimes the cost of switching vendors or suppli-

ers is higher than you think. “With external parties, you

don’t want to fall on your sword, but you also don’t want

to treat them as if they don’t matter,” says Jeff Weiss.

Show respect

With people you don’t see regularly, and perhaps with

whom you communicate mostly via email, it’s impor-

tant to demonstrate that you value the relationship.

This isn’t always implicit. It’s a good way to signal that

you’re invested in working through the issue. Plus, it

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

162

establishes a foundation of trust from which you can

solve the problem: “I know we don’t see each other of-

ten, but I wanted you to know that I value this relation-

ship and appreciate what your company does for ours.”

Jointly diagnose the problem

As with any conﬂ ict, you want to understand what the

root cause is, but because you work in different organi-

zations, you may know less about your counterpart, his

perspective, and his goals. Sit down to jointly diagnose

what led to the conﬂ ict. Is there a communication prob-

lem? Are you perceiving an issue differently? What about

your contribution to the issues? Have you not given the

supplier clear instructions? Have you been too hands-

off? Have you made it difﬁ cult for him to do his job?

Know your counterpart’s stakeholders

You likely have a contact at your supplier, but this isn’t

the person who makes all of the decisions that affect you.

You’re frustrated that he’s not getting back to you about

pricing or delivery terms, but it may be that he’s trying

to get his boss or ﬁ nance on board with the new terms.

“You are at the interface of the conﬂ ict,” says Jonathan

Hughes. When you do the work to better understand

your counterpart and your goals, don’t just focus on your

point of contact. Also consider anyone who may have a

stake in the decision. And when you propose a resolu-

tion, ﬁ gure out how you can help your contact sell it in-

ternally at his organization so that it ﬁ ts into their goals.

You can ask, “How can I help you get approval for this

arrangement?”

Navigate Common Situations

163

Consider the precedent

Because you may have fewer interactions with this per-

son than you do with coworkers, it’s important to exam-

ine the tone you’re setting as it’s likely to inﬂ uence any

discussions that come next. “Think about the history you

want to have behind you,” advises Weiss. If you mistreat

your counterpart, you’re sending the message that he can

do the same the next time an issue comes up between

your two organizations—whereas if you are thoughtful

and respectful, and take his (and his company’s) per-

spective into consideration, you’re paving the way for

smoother interactions in the future.

Zach’s story

As the project manager at a building company, Zach

works with dozens of subcontractors at a time—

plumbers, painters, carpenters, electricians. “I approach

these relationships with one question in mind: ‘How can

we partner to get this project done for a client?’” he says.

But he acknowledges that it’s difﬁ cult to settle disputes

because the subcontractors can walk away from the job.

“They don’t have the relationship with the client; I do,”

he says.

A plumber with whom he was working on a big re-

design project was getting upset about the payment

terms. “It’s standard in the industry to pay subcontrac-

tors within 30 days, but we’re not always able to do that,”

Zach says. The plumber had put a lot of time and mate-

rial into the project, and he hadn’t received any payment.

“The trouble was that the client wasn’t paying us, so we

Resolving a Conﬂ ict

164

couldn’t pay out our subs.” The plumber threatened to

walk off the job.

Although Zach knew he could ﬁ nd another subcon-

tractor if necessary, he valued his relationship with this

plumber and said so. He told him, “Look, you’ve always

been a great partner, and as you know, we typically pay

net 30, but we’re stuck in a bind this time. Can you see

it from my perspective? I’d love to pay you, but I just

don’t have the money.” Zach then offered to let him know

as soon as the client check came in. “I promised I’d send

him his check the very same day,” he says. “I don’t think

he was happy with the outcome because he still had to

wait for his money, but he understood the position I

was in.”

Knowing how to manage conﬂ ict at work won’t make it

go away, but it will make dealing with any disagreements

easier and less stressful. Whether you’re experiencing

conﬂ ict with your direct report or your boss—or someone

outside your business—you now have the tools to assess

the situation and choose an approach that works for you.

As these scenarios show, directly addressing the conﬂ ict

is just one alternative. You also need to know when to

walk away or get out of the relationship altogether. But if

you do choose to sit down with your counterpart, you’re

now better equipped to prepare for and engage in a dif-

ﬁ cult conversation, manage your and your counterpart’s

emotions, and develop a resolution together.

165

Sources

Introduction

• Karen Dillon, HBR Guide to Ofﬁ ce Politics, Har-

vard Business Review Press, 2015.

• Jennifer Lawler, “The Real Cost of Workplace Con-

ﬂ ict,” Entrepreneur.com, June 10, 2010, http://

www.entrepreneur.com/article/207196.

• Kenneth W. Thomas, “Making Conﬂ ict Manage-

ment a Strategic Advantage,” CPP, https://www

.cpp.com/pdfs/conﬂ ict_whitepaper.pdf.

• Jeanne Whalen, “Angry Outbursts Really Do Hurt

Your Health, Doctors Find,” Wall Street Journal,

March 23, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/

angry-outbursts-really-do-hurt-your-health

-doctors-ﬁ nd-1427150596.

Chapter 1

• Annie McKee, “How Power Affects Your Productiv-

ity,” HBR.org, February 9, 2015, https://hbr.org/

2015/02/how-power-affects-your-productivity.

Sources

166

Chapter 2

• Jeanne Brett, “When and How to Let a Conﬂ ict

Go,” HBR.org, June 10, 2014, https://hbr.org/

2014/06/when-and-how-to-let-a-conﬂ ict-go/.

Chapter 3

• Hannah Riley Bowles, “Why Women Don’t

Negotiate Their Job Offers,” HBR.org,

June 19, 2014, https://hbr.org/2014/06/

why-women-dont-negotiate-their-job-offers.

• Liane Davey, “Conﬂ ict Strategies for Nice People,”

HBR.org, December 25, 2013, https://hbr

.org/2013/12/conﬂ ict-strategies-for-nice

-people/.

• Judith E. Glaser, “Your Brain Is Hooked on Being

Right,” HBR.org, February 28, 2013, https://hbr

.org/2013/02/break-your-addiction-to-being/.

• Amy Jen Su, “Get Over Your Fear of Conﬂ ict,”

HBR.org, June 6, 2014, https://hbr.org/2014/06/

get-over-your-fear-of-conﬂ ict.

Chapter 4

• Jeanne Brett, “When and How to Let a Conﬂ ict

Go,” HBR.org, June 10, 2104, https://hbr.org/

2014/06/when-and-how-to-let-a-conﬂ ict-go/.

• Ben Dattner, “Most Work Conﬂ icts Aren’t Due to

Personality,” HBR.org, May 20, 2014, https://hbr

Sources

167

.org/2014/05/most-work-conﬂ icts-arent-due-to

-personality/.

• Karen Dillon, HBR Guide to Ofﬁ ce Politics, Har-

vard Business Review Press, 2015.

• Jeffrey Pfeffer, “Win at Workplace Conﬂ ict,”

HBR.org, May 29, 2014, https://hbr.org/2014/

05/win-at-workplace-conﬂ ict/.

• Judith White, “Two Kinds of People You Should

Never Negotiate With,” HBR.org, June 18, 2014,

https://hbr.org/2014/06/two-kinds-of-people

-you-should-never-negotiate-with/.

Chapter 5

• Jeanne Brett, “When and How to Let a Conﬂ ict

Go,” HBR.org, June 10, 2014, https://hbr.org/

2014/06/when-and-how-to-let-a-conﬂ ict-go/.

• Susan David, “Manage a Difﬁ cult Conversation

with Emotional Intelligence,” HBR.org, June 19,

2014, https://hbr.org/2014/manage-a-difﬁ cult

-conversation-with-emotional-intelligence/.

• Susan David and Christina Congleton, “Emotional

Agility,” Harvard Business Review, November

2013 (product R1311L).

• Amy Gallo, “Choose the Right Words in an Argu-

ment,” HBR.org, June 16, 2014, https://hbr

.org/2014/06/choose-the-right-words-in-an

-argument/.

Sources

168

• Amy Gallo, “How to Work with Someone You

Hate,” HBR.org, January 30, 2012, https://

hbr.org/2012/01/how-to-work-with-someone

-you-h/.

• Amy Gallo, “The Right Way to Fight,” HBR.org,

May 12, 2010, https://hbr.org/2010/05/the

-right-way-to-ﬁ ght/.

• Rebecca Knight, “How to Handle Difﬁ cult Con-

versations at Work,” HBR.org, January 9, 2015,

https://hbr.org/2015/01/how-to-handle-difﬁ cult

-conversations-at-work.

Chapter 6

• Dorie Clark, “How to Repair a Damaged Profes-

sional Relationship,” HBR.org, June 5, 2014,

https://hbr.org/2014/06/how-to-repair-a

-damaged-professional-relationship.

• Liane Davey, “Conﬂ ict Strategies for Nice Peo-

ple,” HBR.org, December 25, 2013, https:// hbr

.org/2013/12/conﬂ ict-strategies-for-nice -people/.

• Susan David and Christina Congleton, “Emotional

Agility,” Harvard Business Review, November

2013 (product R1311L).

• Amy Gallo, “Choose the Right Words in an

Argu ment,” HBR.org, June 16, 2014, https://

hbr .org/2014/06/hoose-the-right-words-in-an

-argument/.

Sources

169

• Amy Gallo, “The Right Way to Fight,” HBR.org,

May 12, 2010, https://hbr.org/2010/05/the-right

-way-to-ﬁ ght/.

• Mark Gerzon, “To Resolve a Conﬂ ict, First De-

cide: Is It Hot or Cold?” HBR.org, June 26, 2014,

https://hbr.org/2014/06/to-resolve-a-conﬂ ict

-ﬁ rst-decide-is-it-hot-or-cold/.

• Rebecca Knight, “How to Handle Difﬁ cult Con-

versations at Work,” HBR.org, January 9, 2015,

https://hbr.org/2015/01/how-to-handle-difﬁ cult

-conversations-at-work.

• Katie Liljenquist and Adam Galinsky, “Win Over

an Opponent by Asking for Advice,” HBR.org,

June 27, 2014, https://hbr.org/2014/06/win-over

-an-opponent-by-asking-for-advice.

Chapter 7

• Rebecca Knight, “How to Handle Difﬁ cult Con-

versations at Work,” HBR.org, January 9, 2015,

https://hbr.org/2015/01/how-to-handle-difﬁ cult

-conversations-at-work.

• Jeff Weiss, HBR Guide to Negotiating, Harvard

Business Review Press, 2016.

Chapter 8

• Jeanne Brett, “When and How to Let a Conﬂ ict

Go,” HBR.org, June 10, 2014, https://hbr.org/

2014/06/when-and-how-to-let-a-conﬂ ict-go/.

Sources

170

• Dorie Clark, “How to Repair a Damaged Profes-

sional Relationship,” HBR.org, June 5, 2014,

https://hbr.org/2014/06/how-to-repair-a

-damaged-professional-relationship.

• Amy Gallo, “Fixing a Work Relationship Gone

Sour,” HBR.org, August 20, 2014, https://hbr

.org/2014/08/ﬁ xing-a-work-relationship-gone

-sour/.

• Amy Gallo, “How to Build the Social Ties You

Need at Work,” HBR.org, September 23, 2015,

https://hbr.org/2015/09/how -to -build -the -social

-ties -you-need-at-work.

• Amy Gallo, “How to Deal with a Mean Colleague,”

HBR.org, October 16, 2014, https://hbr.org/

2014/10/how-to-deal-with-a-mean-colleague/.

• Amy Gallo, “How to Manage Someone You

Don’t Like,” HBR.org, August 29, 2013, https://

hbr.org/2013/08/how-to-manage-someone-you

-dont/.

• Amy Gallo, “How to Work with Someone You

Hate,” HBR.org, January 30, 2012, https://hbr

.org/2012/01/how-to-work-with-someone-you-h/.

• Caroline Webb, “How to Tell a Coworker They’re

Annoying You,” HBR.org, March 10, 2016, https://

hbr.org/2016/03/how -to -tell -a -coworker -theyre

-annoying-you.

Sources

171

Chapter 9

• Jeanne Brett, “When and How to Let a Conﬂ ict

Go,” HBR.org, June 10, 2014, https://hbr.org/

2014/06/when-and-how-to-let-a-conﬂ ict-go/.

• Liane Davey, “Conﬂ ict Strategies for Nice People,”

HBR.org, December 25, 2013, https://hbr.org/

2013/12/conﬂ ict-strategies-for-nice-people/.

• Liane Davey, “Managing Two People Who Hate

Each Other,” HBR.org, June 9, 2014, https://hbr

.org/2014/06/managing-two-people-who-hate

-each-other/.

• Liane Davey, “What to Do When Your Boss

Doesn’t Like You,” HBR.org, December 8, 2014,

https://hbr.org/2014/12/what-to-do-when-your

-boss-doesnt-like-you.

• Karen Dillon, “Don’t Hide When Your Boss Is

Mad at You,” HBR.org, June 11, 2014, https://hbr

.org/2014/06/dont-hide-when-your-boss-is-mad

-at-you/.

• Nathanael J. Fast, Ethan R. Burris, and Caroline A.

Bartel, “Research: Insecure Managers Don’t Want

Your Suggestions,” HBR.org, November 24, 2014,

https://hbr.org/2014/11/research-insecure

-managers -dont-want-your-suggestions/.

• Keith Ferrazzi, “How to Manage Conﬂ ict in

Virtual Teams,” HBR.org, November 19, 2012,

Sources

172

https://hbr.org/2012/11/how-to-manage-conﬂ ict

-in-virt/.

• Amy Gallo, “Choose the Right Words in an Argu-

ment,” HBR.org, June 16, 2014, https://hbr

.org/2014/06/choose-the-right-words-in-an

-argument/.

• Amy Gallo, “Get Your Team to Stop Fighting and

Start Working,” HBR.org, June 9, 2010, https://

hbr.org/2010/06/get-your-team-to-stop-ﬁ ghting/.

• Amy Gallo, “How to Deal with a Mean Colleague,”

HBR.org, October 16, 2014, https://hbr.org/

2014/10/how-to-deal-with-a-mean-colleague.

• Amy Gallo, “The Right Way to Fight,” HBR.org,

May 12, 2010, https://hbr.org/2010/05/the-right

-way-to-ﬁ ght/.

• Amy Gallo, “When Two of Your Coworkers Are

Fighting,” HBR.org, July 3, 2014, https://hbr

.org/2014/07/when-two-of-your-coworkers-are

-ﬁ ghting/.

• Amy Gallo, “When You Think the Strategy Is

Wrong,” HBR.org, February 4, 2010, https://hbr

.org/2010/02/when-you-think-the-strategy-is

.html.

• Daniel Goleman, “E-Mail Is Easy to Write (and

to Misread),” New York Times, October 7, 2007,

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/jobs/07pre

.html?_r=0.

Sources

173

• Joseph Grenny, “How to Disagree with Your Boss,”

HBR.org, November 25, 2014, https://hbr.org/

2014/11/how-to-disagree-with-your-boss.

• Joseph Grenny, “The Best Teams Hold Themselves

Accountable,” HBR.org, May 30, 2014, https://

hbr.org/2014/05/the-best-teams-hold-themselves

-accountable.

• Pamela Hinds, “4 Ways to Decrease Conﬂ ict

Within Global Teams,” HBR.org, June 27, 2014,

https://hbr.org/2014/06/4-ways-to-decrease

-conﬂ ict-within-global-teams.

• Amy Jen Su and Muriel Maignan Wilkins, “How

to Deal with a Passive-Aggressive Peer,” HBR.org,

December 14, 2010, https://hbr.org/2010/12/how

-to-deal-with-a-passive-agg.

• Rebecca Knight, “How to Manage Remote Direct

Reports,” HBR.org, February 10, 2015, https://

hbr.org/2015/02/how-to-manage-remote-direct

-reports.

• Annie McKee, “When Fighting with Your Boss,

Protect Yourself First,” HBR.org, July 22, 2014,

https://hbr.org/2014/07/when-ﬁ ghting-with

-your-boss-protect-yourself-ﬁ rst/.

• Holly Weeks, “Say No Without Burning Bridges,”

HBR.org, June 24, 2014, https://hbr.org/2014/06/

say-no-without-burning-bridges/.

175

Featured Experts

Deborah Ancona is the Seley Distinguished Professor

of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Manage-

ment and the faculty director of the MIT Leadership

Center. She is also a coauthor of X-Teams: How to Build

Teams That Lead, Innovate, and Succeed (with Henrik

Bresman).

Richard Boyatzis is a Distinguished University Professor,

and a professor in the departments of Organizational

Behavior and Psychology Cognitive Science at Case

Western Reserve University, where his MOOC “Inspiring

Leadership Through Emotional Intelligence,” has over

400,000 participants from over 200 countries. He is a

coauthor of Primal Leadership: Unleashing the Power of

Emotional Intelligence (with Daniel Goleman and An-

nie McKee), as well as Resonant Leadership: Renewing

Yourself and Connecting with Others Through Mindful-

ness, Hope, and Compassion (with Annie Mckee) and

Becoming a Resonant Leader: Develop Your Emotional

Intelligence, Renew Your Relationships, Sustain Your Ef-

fectiveness (with Annie McKee and Fran Johnston).

Featured Experts

176

Jeanne Brett is the DeWitt W. Buchanan, Jr. Dis-

tinguished Professor of Dispute Resolution and Or-

ganizations at the Kellogg School of Management,

Northwestern University, and the director of the Kellogg

School’s Dispute Resolution Research Center. She is the

author of Negotiating Globally: How to Negotiate Deals,

Resolve Disputes, and Make Decisions Across Cultural

Boundaries and a coauthor (with William Ury and Ste-

phen B. Goldberg) of Getting Disputes Resolved: Design-

ing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conﬂ ict.

Dorie Clark is a marketing strategist and professional

speaker who teaches at Duke University’s Fuqua School

of Business. She is the author of Reinventing You: Deﬁ ne

Your Brand, Imagine Your Future and Stand Out: How

to Find Your Breakthrough Idea and Build a Following

Around It. She is currently writing a book on being an

entrepreneur for Harvard Business Review Press. You

can access her free articles at dorieclark.com

Ben Dattner is an executive coach and the founder of

Dattner Consulting in New York City. He is also the

author of The Blame Game: How the Hidden Rules of

Credit and Blame Determine Our Success or Failure.

Liane Davey is the cofounder of 3COze Inc. She is the

author of You First: Inspire Your Team to Grow Up, Get

Along, and Get Stuff Done and a coauthor (with David S.

Weiss and Vince Molinaro) of Leadership Solutions: The

Pathway to Bridge the Leadership Gap. Follow her on

Twitter: @LianeDavey.

Featured Experts

177

Susan David, PhD, a founder of the Harvard afﬁ liated

Institute of Coaching and CEO of Evidence Based Psy-

chology, is an internationally recognized leader operat-

ing at the nexus of business and psychology. She rou-

tinely consults, speaks, and coaches at the most senior

levels of Fortune 500 organizations and inﬂ uential not-

for- proﬁ ts. She is the author of Emotional Agility: Get

Unstuck, Embrace Change, and Thrive in Work and

Life and coauthor of the deﬁnitive Oxford Handbook of

Happiness (with Ilona Boniwell and Amanda Conley

Ayers) and Beyond Goals: Effective Strategies for Coach-

ing and Mentoring (with David Clutterbuck and David

Megginson).

Karen Dillon is the author of the HBR Guide to Ofﬁce

Politics and a coauthor of Competing Against Luck: The

Story of Innovation and Customer Choice (with Clay-

ton M. Christensen, Taddy Hall, and David S. Duncan)

and How Will You Measure Your Life? (with Clayton M.

Christensen and James Allworth). She is the former edi-

tor of Harvard Business Review. Follow her on Twitter:

@DillonHBR.

Nathanael Fast is an associate professor of management

at the Marshall School of Business at the University of

Southern California. He studies power and status in

groups and organizations.

Keith Ferrazzi is the CEO of Ferrazzi Greenlight, a

research- based consulting and coaching company, and

the author of Never Eat Alone and the #1 best seller

Featured Experts

178

Who’s Got Your Back: The Breakthrough Program to

Build Deep, Trusting Relationships That Create Suc-

cess—and Won’t Let You Fail.

Adam Galinsky is the Vikram S. Pandit Professor of Busi-

ness and the chair of the Management Department at

the Columbia Business School. He is the coauthor (with

Maurice Schweitzer) of Friend and Foe: When to Cooper-

ate, When to Compete, and How to Succeed at Both. His

research focuses on leadership, power, negotiations, de-

cision making, and ethics.

Mark Gerzon is the author of Leading Through Con-

ﬂ ict: How Successful Leaders Transform Differences

into Opportunities and the president of the Mediators

Foundation.

Judith E. Glaser is the CEO of Benchmark Communi-

cations and the chairman of the Creating WE Institute.

She is the author of six books, including Creating WE:

Change I-Thinking to We-Thinking and Build a Healthy,

Thriving Organization and Conversational Intelligence:

How Great Leaders Build Trust and Get Extraordinary

Results.

Daniel Goleman is a codirector of the Consortium for

Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations at

Rutgers University, a coauthor (with Richard Boyatzis

and Annie McKee) of Primal Leadership: Unleash-

ing the Power of Emotional Intelligence, and the au-

thor of Focus: The Hidden Driver of Success, Emotional

Featured Experts

179

Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, The

Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights, and

Leadership: The Power of Emotional Intelligence, Selected

Writings.

Joseph Grenny is a cofounder of VitalSmarts, an inno-

vator in corporate training and leadership development,

and a coauthor of Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talk-

ing When Stakes Are High and Crucial Accountability:

Tools for Resolving Violated Expectations, Broken Com-

mitments, and Bad Behavior (with Kerry Patterson, Ron

McMillan, and Al Switzler), as well as Inﬂ uencer: The

New Science of Leading Change and Change Anything:

The New Science of Personal Success (with Kerry Patter-

son, David Maxﬁ eld, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler).

Linda Hill is the Wallace Brett Donham Professor of Busi-

ness Administration at Harvard Business School. She is a

coauthor of Being the Boss: The 3 Imperatives for Becom-

ing a Great Leader (with Kent Lineback) and Collective

Genius: The Art and Practice of Leading Innovation (with

Greg Brandeau, Emily Truelove, and Kent Lineback).

Pamela Hinds is a professor in management science and

engineering at Stanford University. She studies the dy-

namics of globally distributed work teams and writes

about issues of culture, language, and the transfer of

work practices in global collaborations.

Jonathan Hughes is a partner at Vantage Partners, a

global consultancy that advises companies on complex

Featured Experts

180

B2B negotiations, strategic alliances, customer and sup-

plier partnerships, and organizational transformation.

Amy Jen Su is a cofounder and managing partner of

Paravis Partners, a boutique executive coaching and

leader ship development ﬁ rm. She is a coauthor (with

Muriel Maignan Wilkins) of Own the Room: Discover

Your Signature Voice to Master Your Leadership Presence.

Roderick Kramer is the William R. Kimball Professor

of Organizational Behavior, Stanford Graduate School

of Business, a coeditor (with Todd Pittinsky) of Restor-

ing Trust in Organizations and Leaders, and a coeditor

(with George Goethals, Scott Allison, and David Mes-

sick) of Conceptions of Leadership.

Katie Liljenquist is on the faculty of Brigham Young Uni-

versity’s Department of Organizational Leadership and

Strategy. She studies decision making and interpersonal

inﬂ uence.

Muriel Maignan Wilkins is a cofounder and managing

partner of Paravis Partners, a boutique executive coach-

ing and leadership development ﬁ rm. She is a coauthor

(with Amy Jen Su) of Own the Room: Discover Your Sig-

nature Voice to Master Your Leadership Presence.

Jean-François Manzoni is the president and Nestlé Pro-

fessor at IMD. He is a coauthor (with Jean-Louis Bar-

soux) of The Set-Up-to-Fail Syndrome: How Good Man-

agers Cause Great People to Fail.

Featured Experts

181

Annie McKee is a senior fellow at the University of Penn-

sylvania, the director of the PennCLO Executive Doc-

toral Program, and the founder of the Teleos Leader-

ship Institute. She is a coauthor of Primal Leadership:

Unleashing the Power of Emotional Intelligence (with

Daniel Goleman and Richard Boyatzis), as well as Res-

onant Leadership: Renewing Yourself and Connecting

with Others Through Mindfulness, Hope, and Compas-

sion (with Richard Boyatzis), and Becoming a Resonant

Leader: Develop Your Emotional Intelligence, Renew

Your Relationships, Sustain Your Effectiveness (with

Richard Boyatzis and Fran Johnston). She is also the au-

thor of the forthcoming How to Be Happy at Work: The

Power of Purpose, Hope, and Friendship.

Erin Meyer is a professor specializing in cross- cultural

management at INSEAD. She is the author of The Cul-

ture Map: Breaking Through the Invisible Bound aries of

Global Business. Follow her @Erin Meyer INSEAD.

Mark Mortensen is an associate professor of organi-

zational behavior at INSEAD. His work focuses on the

changing nature of collaboration, particularly ﬂ uid, in-

terdependent, and global teams.

Gary Namie is the founder of the Workplace Bullying

Institute. He is a coauthor (with Ruth F. Namie) of The

Bully-Free Workplace: Stop Jerks, Weasels, and Snakes

from Killing Your Organization and The Bully at Work:

What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt and Reclaim Your

Dignity on the Job.

Featured Experts

182

Jeﬀ rey Pfeﬀ er is Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Orga-

nizational Behavior at the Graduate School of Business,

Stanford University. He is the author of Leadership BS:

Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time,

and Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don’t.

Anna Ranieri is a career counselor, an executive coach,

and a coauthor (with Joe Gurkoff) of How Can I Help?

What You Can (and Can’t) Do to Counsel a Friend, Col-

league, or Family Member with a Problem.

Dr. John Ratey is an associate clinical professor of psy-

chiatry at Harvard Medical School. He is the author of A

User’s Guide to the Brain. He is also a coauthor of Spark:

The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain

(with Eric Hagerman) and Driven to Distraction: Recog-

nizing and Coping with Attention Deﬁ cit Disorder from

Childhood Through Adulthood, Answers to Distraction,

and Delivered from Distraction: Getting the Most Out

of Life with Attention Deﬁ cit Disorder (with Edward M.

Hallowell, MD).

Robert Sutton is a professor of management science and

engineering in the Stanford Engineering School, where

he is a cofounder and active member of the Stanford

Technology Ventures Program, and the Hasso Plattner

Institute of Design (the “d.school”). He is author or co-

author of six books, including Good Boss, Bad Boss: How

to Be the Best . . . and Learn from the Worst and The No

Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Sur-

Featured Experts

183

viving One That Isn’t, and Scaling Up Excellence: Get-

ting to More Without Settling for Less (with Huggy Rao).

Brian Uzzi is the Richard L. Thomas Professor of Lead-

ership and Organizational Change at Northwestern’s

Kellogg School of Management and the codirector of the

Northwestern Institute on Complex Systems (NICO).

He is a coauthor (with Shannon Dunlap) of the Har-

vard Business Review article “Make Your Enemies Your

Allies.”

Caroline Webb is the author of How to Have a Good

Day: Harness the Power of Behavioral Science to Trans-

form Your Working Life. She is also CEO of the coach-

ing ﬁ rm Sevenshift and a senior adviser to McKinsey &

Company.

Holly Weeks is a communications consultant, an adjunct

lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School,

and the author of Failure to Communicate: How Conver-

sations Go Wrong and What You Can Do to Right Them.

Jeﬀ Weiss is a partner at Vantage Partners, a global

consultancy specializing in corporate negotiations, rela-

tionship management, partnering, and complex change

management. He serves on the faculties of the Tuck

School of Business at Dartmouth and the United States

Military Academy at West Point, where he is also the co-

director of the West Point Negotiation Project. He is au-

thor of the HBR Guide to Negotiating.

Featured Experts

184

Judith White is a visiting associate professor of manage-

ment at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. Her

research focuses on gender and diversity in groups, mul-

tidisciplinary teams, narcissism and negotiation, and

conﬂ ict management.

Michele Woodward is a Master Certiﬁ ed Coach who

coaches executives and trains other coaches.

185

Index

accountability, 90

active listening, 85–88

addressing conﬂ ict, options for,

xxiv, xxv, 15–29, 52–58

advice

asking for, 78–79, 88

giving, 139

African cultures, conﬂ ict man-

agement in, 20. See also

cultural norms and

conﬂ ict

anger

health problems caused by,

xx–xxi (see also health prob-

lems related to conﬂ ict)

toward boss, 141–145

See also emotions

apologies, 90–92, 116–117

Asian cultures, indirect conﬂ ict

handling in, 19–20, 36. See

also cultural norms and

conﬂ ict

assertive cultures, 23. See

also cultural norms and

conﬂ ict

assessment

of counterpart, 43–47

of situation, 43–60

avoidance of conﬂ ict, xx, 17, 21

avoiders, conﬂ ict, xxv, 32–34, 48

back pain, 33. See also health

problems related to conﬂ ict

beneﬁ ts of conﬂ ict, xxi–xxiii

blame

admitting, 90

assigning, 76

body

focusing on your, 82

language, 91–93, 94

boss

anger toward, 141–145

colleague goes over your head

to, 130–136

escalating conﬂ ict to, 108

repairing relationship with, 134

respect for, 142–143

brainstorming, resolution, 105.

See also emotions

ﬁ nger-pointing, 90. See also con-

versations, productive

future, focusing on, 79–80,

112–113

gender norms, 37. See also natu-

ral tendencies, for handling

conﬂ ict

goals

determining your, 51–52

disputes over, 4, 7–9

returning to original, 95

shared, 65, 76–77, 128

ground rules for difﬁ cult conver-

sations, 79. See also conver-

sations, productive

growth opportunities, xxii. See

also beneﬁ ts of conﬂ ict

headaches, 33. See also health

problems related to

conﬂ ict

health problems related to

conﬂ ict, xx–xxi, 33. See also

emotional toll, of conﬂ ict

heart attacks, xx. See also health

problems related to

conﬂ ict

hypotheticals, 92. See also con-

versations, productive

Index

189

indirect confrontation, xxiv,

19–22, 53. See also options

for addressing conﬂ ict

informal communica-

tion, 124–125. See also

communication

innovation, xxi. See also beneﬁ ts

of conﬂ ict

interpersonal conﬂ icts. See rela-

tionship conﬂ icts

job satisfaction, xxii–xxiii. See

also beneﬁ ts of conﬂ ict

language

body, 92–93, 94

verbal, 90–92, 96

Latin American cultures, 36. See

also cultural norms and

conﬂ ict

learning opportunity, conﬂ ict

as, xxii, 109–110. See also

beneﬁ ts of conﬂ ict

listening, active, 85–88

location, for conversations,

68–69, 72

mantras, 82. See also calmness

mediators, 97. See also conversa-

tions, productive

men, conﬂ ict styles and, 37

mental illness, and conﬂ ict,

148–152

messages

nonverbal, 92–93

planning, 65–66, 71

metaphors, 19–20. See also indi-

rect confrontation

mindset, 61–62, 71

multiple scenarios, preparing for,

66, 71

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

(MBTI), 39. See also natural

tendencies, for handling

conﬂ ict

name-calling, 90. See also con-

versations, productive

National Alliance on Mental

Illness, 150. See also mental

illness, and conﬂ ict

natural tendencies, for handling

conﬂ ict, xxiv–xxv, 31–40,

47, 48

assessing your counterpart’s,

43–47

being mindful of, 54

conﬂ ict avoiders, xxv, 32–34,

conﬂ ict seekers, xxv, 34–35, 48

identifying your, 35–40

interactions between different

styles, 47, 48

timing of conversations and,

negative emotions, xxvii, 80–85.

See also emotions

nonverbal communication,

92–93, 94. See also

communication

ofﬁ ce context, 37, 45, 64–65

open mind, 62. See also mindset

options for addressing conﬂ ict,

xxiv, xxv, 15–29, 52–58

organizational context, 64–65

organizational culture, 23, 64

outcomes, better work. See ben-

eﬁ ts of conﬂ ict

Index

190

outside partners, conﬂ icts with,

160–164

passive-aggressive counterparts,

126–130

personal disagreements, xxiv, xxv,

4, 5–7, 50. See also relation-

ship conﬂ icts

personality assessment, 39–40.

See also emotions

task conﬂ icts, xxiv, xxv, 4, 7–9,

101. See also conﬂ ict types

team members

who hate each other, 152–157

who turn on you, 157–160

tendency for handling conﬂ ict,

natural, xxiv–xxv, 31–40,

47, 48

third parties

involving in conﬂ ict, 20,

95–97, 128–129, 159

rebuilding relationships and,

118

Thomas-Kilmann Conﬂ ict Mode

Instrument (TKI), 39–40.