Addressing Workplace Conflict Resolution

If #diversity, #equity, and #inclusion practitioners want to get ahead of anti-DEI backlash, we have to address an elephant in the room: no two people in the same workplace perceive their workplace the same way. I see this every time I work with client organizations. When asked to describe their own experience with the workplace and its DEI strengths and challenges, I hear things like: 😊 "I've never experienced any discrimination or mistreatment; our leaders' commitment is strong." 🤨 "I had a good time in one department, but after transferring departments I started experiencing explicit ableist comments under my new manager." 🙁 "I've never had anything egregious happen, but I've always felt less respected by my team members because of my race." Who's right? Turns out, all of them. It starts to get messy because everyone inevitably generalizes their own personal experiences into their perception of the workplace as a whole; three people might accordingly describe their workplace as a "meritocracy without discrimination," an "inconsistently inclusive workplace dependent on manager," or "a subtly racist environment." And when people are confronted with other experiences of the workplace that DIFFER from their own, they often take it personally. I've seen leaders bristle at the implication that their own experience was "wrong," or get defensive in expectation they will be accused of lacking awareness. It's exactly this defensiveness that lays the foundation for misunderstanding, polarization, and yes—anti-DEI misinformation—to spread in an organization. How do we mitigate it? In my own work, I've found that these simple steps go a long way. 1. Validate everyone's experience. Saying outright that everyone's personal experience is "correct" for themselves might seem too obvious, but it plays a powerful role in helping everyone feel respected and taken seriously. Reality is not a question of "who is right"—it's the messy summation of everyone's lived experience, good or bad. 2. Use data to create a shared baseline. Gathering data by organizational and social demographics allows us to make statements like, "the average perception of team respect is 70% in Engineering, but only 30% in Sales," or "perception of fair decision making processes is 90% for white men, but only 40% for Black women." This establishes a shared reality, a baseline for any effective DEI work. 3. Make it clear that problem-solving involves—and requires—everyone. The goal of DEI work is to achieve positive outcomes for everyone. Those with already positive experiences? Their insights help us know what we're aiming for. Those with the most negative? Their insights help us learn what's broken. The more we communicate that collective effort benefits the collective, rather than shaming or dismissing those at the margins, the more we can unite people around DEI and beat the backlash.

We trusted them. That made the dispute worse. I spoke on a panel recently about dispute resolution. The very first question came to me: “𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗼 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵?” I said: Because not all trust protects you. Some of it actually makes things worse. The silence in the room spoke volumes. We like to believe trust is a buffer. That it makes relationships “safe.” But in practice, I’ve seen it do the opposite. Trust, when it’s shallow, mismatched, or never stress tested, can give you a false sense of security. Then conflict hits, and everything fractures. Some trust can survive pressure. Some gets exposed by it. Here’s what I’ve seen over and over again: → 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 can be rebuilt → 𝗘𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 takes the longest to repair → 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 (“they’ll deliver”) is resilient → “𝗡𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝘆𝗲𝘁” 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 often the most dangerous. → 𝗚𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 (“they have our best interests at heart”) is vulnerable And in high-stakes negotiations or long term partnerships, most people 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆’𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴. They just assume it’s strong, until it's tested! For relationships to survive disputes Don’t avoid tension. Build for it. → Create psychological safety → Track trust in real-time, not just in retros → Structure contracts for repair, not just prevention → Make it okay to raise concerns 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 the damage is done Trust isn’t avoiding discomfort. It’s knowing how the relationship holds when a dispute shows up. So the question worth asking isn’t: - “𝘋𝘰 𝘸𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳?” - It’s “𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥?” That’s where the real relationship lives. I’d like to hear from you: What’ve you seen help (or harm) trust during a dispute? Let’s raise the bar for how trust is built 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱. ----------------------------------------------- My free newsletter is where I share the expert stuff that doesn’t fit in a post. One email a week - focused, useful, and real. Join me: https://lnkd.in/gseUj6US

Interview Conversation Role: RTE in #SAFe framework Topic: Conflict Management 👴 Interviewer: "Imagine the Product Manager and System Architect disagree over feature priorities, with the PM focusing on customer needs and the Architect concerned about tech debt. As the RTE, how would you handle this?" 🧑 Candidate: "I’d remind them to focus on the PI objectives and find a middle ground." 👴 Interviewer: "Say this disagreement is slowing decision-making, impacting team alignment, and morale is dipping. What specific actions would you take to mediate?" 🧑 Candidate: "I’d encourage both of them to think about the project’s overall goals." What a skilled Release Train Engineer should say: ------------------------------------------------------ In cases like this, it’s crucial to foster open, constructive discussions without losing sight of both customer value and technical stability. 🌟 I’d start by facilitating a conversation with the PM and Architect to unpack their priorities and establish a shared understanding. 📅 In a similar situation, I scheduled a conflict-resolution workshop with both roles, focusing on ‘value vs. sustainability’ using the Economic Framework. 🏹 We assessed the impact of each priority on the PI objectives, assigning weights based on business and architectural needs. The workshop helped clarify the ROI of tech improvements and immediate features, allowing them to make informed trade-offs. 🛠 To make it concrete, we identified one high-priority feature to advance and a critical refactor for the next PI. By reaching a balanced decision, we addressed urgent customer needs while setting a feasible path for addressing tech debt. 🚩 Impact: This approach helped restore team alignment, fostered trust between the PM and Architect, and improved the ART’s overall efficiency. ✍ As an RTE, my role is to mediate these discussions by grounding decisions in shared values and structured prioritization, ensuring both immediate and long-term value are achieved.

I don't class conflict as a "waste" because not all conflict is bad...but unresolved conflict can be VERY wasteful in organizational improvement efforts. As a Lean and Leadership Coach, I have worked with companies to develop systems and skills to reduce harmful conflict, in order to make continuous improvement a reality. People ask me - how do you know there's conflict in the first place? Do we have to assess it in some way? Short answer yes. The problem has to be visible. My own approach is to ask questions that help me understand it through my 1:1 interviews as part of my Discovery phase. Here's what I (and many studies) see as the 5 of the main causes of workplace conflict...and how to resolve them 👇 👉 Communication Conflict: Studies have found that 39% of workplace conflicts arise from communication differences. I coached 'Joan' who told me that she and her direct report ('Jim') only interact when there's a problem. They both want the same results, but they don't spend time together proactively figuring out how to get them. Resolve it through: ✔️ Holding regular 1:1 and team check-ins ✔️ Reviewing communication and information flow as part of process improvement efforts ✔️ Improving meeting management 👉 Values Conflict: Research indicates that 18% of conflicts are due to clashing values. I see it in teams all the time- 'Mark' valued speed and 'Greg' valued precision. It turned into personal conflict as they were both too set on their own values, to try and understand where the other is coming from. Resolve it through: ✔️ Focusing on shared goals and common ground. ✔️ Respecting different viewpoints ✔️ Investing in people and leader development, to develop these skills in everyone. 👉 Resource Conflict: Studies found that 33% of workplace conflicts are due to too much work without enough support or a clash over differing cross- departmental priorities. A simple example- the Sales team rush orders to hit targets but Operations burns out trying to deliver. Resolve it through: ✔️ Being fair and transparent about resources. ✔️ Prioritizing tasks when resources are limited. ✔️ Working together to find creative solutions. 👉 Personality Conflict: One study found that a whopping 49% of workplace conflicts are attributed to clashes between personalities or egos. This comes down to how people behave, how they judge others and their level of EQ. Resolve it through: ✔️ Learning about different work styles. ✔️ Investing in personal development ✔️ Investing in team EQ development and team bonding 👉 Role Conflict: Unclear roles and responsibilities can cause confusion and disputes. Approximately 22% of workplace conflicts is said to stem from unclear roles. Resolve it through: ✔️ Clearly defining roles and responsibilities. ✔️ Reviewing job duties regularly and using them in 1:1's. ✔️ Discussing and fix any role overlaps. How should we be dealing with conflict in our organizations? Leave your thoughts below 🙏

Workplace conflict: your brain takes 0.07s to react. Your career takes years to recover. The truth is that one wrong word can: ↳ Break trust ↳ Limit your influence ↳ Close off opportunities But many professionals unknowingly use phrases that trigger resistance. Here's what works instead: 1. Instead of "That's not my job" ↳ "I see this matters. Let's figure out how to get it done." ↳ Shows teamwork while maintaining boundaries 2. Replace "We've always done it this way" ↳ "I see why this feels right. Shall we explore ideas?" ↳ Positions you as innovative, not stuck 3. Never say "That's not true" ↳ "I see it differently. Let me share my perspective." ↳ Opens dialogue instead of creating defense 4. Drop "You should have..." ↳ "Next time, let's try this approach." ↳ Future-focused, not blame-focused 5. Instead of "I don't have time" ↳ "This is important. Can we schedule time to discuss?" ↳ Shows respect while setting boundaries 6. Never say "Calm down" ↳ "I see this is frustrating. Let's take a moment to reset." ↳ Validates emotions while moving to solutions 7. Drop "You don't understand" ↳ "Maybe we're seeing this differently. Can we clarify what we both need?" ↳ Invites collaboration, not confrontation 8. Replace "It's not a big deal" ↳ "I see why this matters to you. Let's figure out a solution." ↳ Acknowledges impact, builds trust 9. Avoid "Let's agree to disagree" ↳ "We may see this differently, let's see how best to move forward?" ↳ Keeps momentum toward solutions 10. Never say "I'm done with this" ↳ "Let's take a break and revisit with clear minds." ↳ Professional pause, not emotional exit 11. Drop "I'm just being honest" ↳ "I want to be direct while keeping this constructive. Here's my perspective..." ↳ Maintains respect while being truthful The truth is, how you handle conflict impacts how leadership sees you: ↳ As a bridge builder or bridge burner ↳ As a problem solver or problem creator ↳ As future leadership material or a liability What’s one workplace phrase you wish people would stop using? ♻️ Repost to help your network to navigate workplace conflict! ➕ Follow Meera Remani for more career transforming insights.

An employee is injured at work and lodges a workers' compensation claim. The employer disputes liability, and weekly compensation is stopped. If you're the employer, do you: (a) reach out to the employee to assess his fitness to return to work; or (b) ghost the employee, and when he asks if he is still employed, say you'd be happy to accept his resignation, then terminate his employment when he doesn't respond? It should be (a), but in Wilson v Care Park Pty Ltd it was (b), and the Fair Work Commission found the dismissal to be unfair. Mr Wilson was a Parking Patrol Officer. In November 2024, he was hit by a car while working and tore his meniscus. He lodged a workers' compensation claim and was absent from work. In February 2025, the employer disputed liability for his workers' compensation claim. The Tribunal found there was a reasonably arguable case and ordered that no weekly compensation be paid. Mr Wilson expected his employer would contact him to discuss his wellbeing and the 'way forward'. He didn't hear anything, so in early March he sent an email asking his employer to confirm if he was still employed and that his annual leave be paid if he wasn't. His employer responded by saying that his annual leave would be paid if he chose to resign and that they would 'be happy' to accept his resignation. When he didn't respond, they terminated his employment. They said this was due to his extended absence from the workplace and the outcome of his workers' compensation claim, which meant he had not been able to fulfill his duties throughout the year, with no foreseeable return to work. Mr Wilson subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim. The employer argued Mr Wilson abandoned his employment as he made no effort to engage with them after emailing in early March. The Commission found the employee had made a legitimate enquiry about his employment, which the employer responded to by simply inviting his resignation. It was found this did not show that Mr Wilson intended to repudiate the duty to meet the obligations in his contract of employment. Further, following the invitation to resign, the employer did not engage with the employee at all. The Commission found this was a troubling and inexcusable disinterest to Mr Wilson's welfare and if and when he would be fit to return to work, stating they should have taken steps to confirm the status of his employment and required him to provide medical information about his fitness for work. The Commission found Mr Wilson had not abandoned him employment and there was not a valid reason for his dismissal, rendering it unfair. A reminder that employers do have obligations to contact injured employees about their fitness for work. Mr Wilson may not have responded or provided it, but he wasn't given the opportunity. The Commission also commented that Mr Wilson likely would have abandoned his employment if he failed to respond to repeated contact, but no attempts were made.

Often, it’s easy to “call out” people when we notice their microaggressions or biased behaviors. But it can be equally challenging to recognize and acknowledge our own unconscious biases. That said, becoming aware of your shortcomings can help you hone your leadership style, especially when you’re a new manager. The first step is to acknowledge that you have biases and educate yourself to do better. Ask yourself: Do I hold stereotypes or assumptions about a particular social group? As a manager, do I acknowledge and leverage differences on my team? Use your answers to help you unlearn your unconscious assumptions. When someone calls out your unconscious biases, try not to get defensive. Rather, assume positive intent and use their feedback as an opportunity to learn. Reach out to a diverse group of peers to understand how they perceive you, and seek continuous feedback. These peers can also become “accountability buddies” who help you stay on track when you decide to change your behaviors. Embrace diverse perspectives. If your close circle “looks” just like you, it’s time to build a more diverse network. Join an employee resource group or look to connect with colleagues whose backgrounds are different than your own.close. #diversity #equity #inclusion #belonging

In the last major internal conflict I had, I stopped and thought: am I the first one to live this?! Hostility. Threats. Ah, and I was in the car on the way back from the hospital from giving birth. Nice welcome back 😂 Managers spend up to 40% of their time handling conflicts. This time drain highlights a critical business challenge. Yet when managed effectively, conflict becomes a catalyst for: ✅ Innovation ✅ Better decision-making ✅ Stronger relationships Here's the outcomes of my research. No: I wasn't the first one going through this ;) 3 Research-Backed Conflict Resolution Models: 1. The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model (TKI) Each style has its place in your conflict toolkit: - Competing → Crisis situations needing quick decisions - Collaborating → Complex problems requiring buy-in - Compromising → Temporary fixes under time pressure - Avoiding → Minor issues that will resolve naturally - Accommodating → When harmony matters more than the outcome 2. Harvard Negotiation Project's BATNA Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement - Know your walkaway position - Research all parties' alternatives - Strengthen your options - Negotiate from confidence, not fear 3. Circle of Conflict Model (Moore) Identify the root cause to choose your approach: - Value Conflicts → Find superordinate goals - Relationship Issues → Focus on communication - Data Conflicts → Agree on facts first - Structural Problems → Address system issues - Interest Conflicts → Look for mutual gains Pro Tips for Implementation: ⚡ Before the Conflict: - Map stakeholders - Document facts - Prepare your BATNA - Choose your timing ⚡ During Resolution: - Stay solution-focused - Use neutral language - Listen actively - Take reflection breaks ⚡ After Agreement: - Document decisions - Set review dates - Monitor progress - Acknowledge improvements Remember: Your conflict style should match the situation, not your comfort zone. Feels weird to send that follow up email. But do it: it's actually really crucial. And refrain yourself from putting a few bitter words here and there ;) You'll come out of it a stronger manager. As the saying goes "don't waste a good crisis"! 💡 What's your go-to conflict resolution approach? Has it evolved with experience? ♻️ Share this to empower a leader ➕ Follow Helene Guillaume Pabis for more ✉️ Newsletter: https://lnkd.in/dy3wzu9A

Stop justifying your boundaries. “No” is not rude. It’s how you protect your time, energy, and sanity. I used to be available for everything: 6 PM “quick fixes” that turned into 90-minute tasks. Weekend messages that killed any chance of rest Not because I didn’t have boundaries, But because I didn’t know how to communicate them. Here are 12 boundary-setting phrases I wish I had used sooner: 10  Phrases That Say “I’m not available for that” - without burning bridges: "That doesn’t work for me—here’s what does." → Assertive, clear, and solution-focused. "I’m offline after 6 PM. Let’s revisit this in the morning." → You set the availability, not your inbox. "Let me check my schedule and get back to you." → Creates space to decide without pressure. "I’m happy to help. What should I deprioritize to take this on?" → Makes the tradeoff visible. "I’ve blocked 30 minutes for this call." → Time-caps your energy before others overrun it. "I can help with this part, but not the whole thing." → Protects your bandwidth while still being useful. "Let’s schedule this properly—I want to give it the attention it deserves." → Turn chaos into structure. "I’ve learned I don’t do well with last-minute requests." → Share the why without over-explaining. "Let me get back to you by [time] after I think it through." → You’re not obligated to answer instantly. "That’s outside my zone—but here’s someone who might be a better fit." → Say no, and still be a connector. You don’t need to be aggressive to be clear. You don’t need to explain your “no” to make it valid. Boundaries are a business skill. Use them like one. Save this. Read it again the next time someone tries to rush your yes.