Handling Conflict Conversations in Teams: When to Step In, How to Resolve

Why conflicts cost so much in a small team

In a business with ten people there is no department to escape to. When the dispatcher and the fitter stop talking to each other, it affects every order. Information gets lost, colleagues become messengers, and the owner spends time on follow-up questions that would not exist without the dispute.

Many owners react to such tensions in one of two ways. Either they wait, because conflicts are unpleasant and might pass on their own. Or they quickly decide who is right and assume the matter is settled. Both can be right. Both can aggravate the conflict.

This guide therefore answers one question: When should an owner intervene in a team conflict, and how do they run the conversation so that it restores cooperation? To answer it, I first distinguish the types of conflict, then present a model of conflict styles, weigh when addressing a conflict helps and when calm does, and finally describe a conversation in six steps.

What type of conflict is it?

Since the work of Karen Jehn in the 1990s, conflict research has distinguished two main types. A task conflict is about content, such as the right order of jobs or whether a complaint is justified. A relationship conflict is about people: distrust, hurt, the feeling of not being respected. More recent studies add a third type, process conflict, meaning disputes about who does what and how decisions are made. The article conflicts between partners uses the same classification.

The distinction matters because conflicts often look different from what they are. Behind a dispute about the order of jobs there is not infrequently a process conflict: nobody has determined who sets the order. And a process conflict that remains unresolved for a long time comes to feel like a personal slight. How responsibilities can be clarified with little effort is shown in the guide clarifying responsibilities with the RACI matrix.

For the question of how far a conflict has already progressed, Friedrich Glasl's model of nine escalation stages applies, which the article on partner conflicts describes in detail. In the first phase, stages 1 to 3, both sides can still win, and a moderated conversation is often enough. From the second phase on, one side seeks allies, and the owner becomes a party themselves unless they clearly stay out of it.

The mental model: two concerns, five conflict styles

How people handle conflict is described by the dual concern model. It goes back to Blake and Mouton and was developed further by Thomas and Rahim, among others. The basic idea: in every conflict a person has two concerns, their own outcome and the other party's outcome. Depending on how much each matters to them, they choose one of five styles.

De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Kluwer, and Nauta (2001) developed a questionnaire for this model and tested it in three studies. In a negotiation study, self-reports, ratings by the opponent, and observation agreed well for problem solving, forcing, and yielding. Not for avoiding: someone who sidesteps a conflict is often perceived differently from outside than they see themselves. For owners this is a useful hint. Someone who believes they are staying out of it may appear partial or indifferent to the team.

Address it or let it rest? Two views

The common leadership rule is: conflicts must be put on the table. For task conflicts, research supports this, with one qualification. De Dreu and Weingart (2003) showed in a meta-analysis that task conflicts, too, are on average associated with poorer team performance, especially when they are combined with relationship conflicts. De Dreu (2006) found in two studies that teams were most innovative at a moderate level of task conflict, not at a low or high one. A dispute about the matter at hand is therefore useful as long as it stays factual and does not get out of hand.

For relationship conflicts, a field study shows a picture that contradicts the leadership rule. De Dreu and Van Vianen (2001) examined management and project teams in organizations working on complex, non-routine tasks. They compared three ways of responding to relationship conflict: resolving it together, contending, and avoiding. Collaborating and contending were negatively associated with team functioning and effectiveness. Avoiding, by contrast, went along with better team functioning. The authors interpret this as follows: dealing with the personal conflict distracts from the task, while deliberately letting it rest allows people to keep working.

The study has limits. It is a one-time survey of teams in large organizations, and avoiding there was a decision by the team members, not an instruction from the boss. Nevertheless, I draw a clear conclusion from it. An owner does not have to resolve every personal dislike. They have to make sure it does not hinder the work. The line lies where information is withheld, colleagues speak badly of others, or customers notice something. Then waiting is no longer a strategy but a failure.

An owner does not have to make sure everyone likes each other. They have to make sure everyone can work with each other.

What an unresolved conflict costs: a worked example

Conflicts are expensive, but rarely visibly so. A simple worked example makes the order of magnitude tangible. Suppose two employees in a business with twelve people have hardly spoken to each other for two months. Every coordination runs through third parties or through the owner.

The individual values are estimates, and in your business they may be higher or lower. But the example shows why a one-hour conversation that brings the conflict back into Glasl's first phase is almost always cheaper than waiting. On top of that come costs that cannot be measured in hours, for instance when good people leave because the climate gets worse.

The conflict conversation in six steps

When a conflict hinders the work, a conversation led by the owner is needed. The following procedure suits conflicts in Glasl's first phase. If the conflict has progressed further, a neutral outside person helps, such as a mediator.

1. Clarify the situation

   Before you talk to anyone, write down what you have observed: facts, not interpretations. Assess whether it is more of a task, process, or relationship conflict.

2. Listen separately

   Hold a short one-on-one conversation with each of them. Ask for their view and what they would like. Do not judge and do not promise anything.

3. Set rules

   In the joint conversation, three rules apply: let each other finish, talk about behavior rather than traits, no accusations from the past that have nothing to do with the occasion.

4. Separate positions from interests

   Behind “I want to schedule the jobs myself” there is often an interest such as “I don't want to work overtime all the time.” Keep asking until both interests are on the table.

5. Agree on a solution

   Collect solutions with both that take both interests into account. Put the agreement in writing: who does what, from when, and what happens if it does not work.

6. Follow up

   Set a date two to four weeks later. Ask whether the agreement holds. A conflict conversation without a follow-up date is a good intention, not a solution.

How to phrase criticism so that it relates to behavior and includes a next step is described in the article feedback in sales teams. How to say unpleasant things openly without hurting is shown in the guide delivering bad news.

Common mistakes in conflict conversations

• Passing judgment quickly: Whoever decides in the first conversation who is to blame ends the conflict for one side only. The other looks for allies.
• Overlooking one's own closeness: An owner who has worked closely with one of the two for years is seen as biased, even if they are not. Addressing this openly builds trust.
• Resolving everything at once: A conversation in which every annoyance of the past three years comes up rarely ends with an agreement. One occasion, one solution.
• Forcing a relationship: Two people do not have to like each other. They have to work together respectfully. Asking for more is asking too much.
• No follow-up date: Without a follow-up date, commitment is lacking and the conflict usually returns.

If repeated conversations change nothing and an employee permanently refuses to cooperate, it is no longer a question of conflict resolution but a question of leadership. How a separation is handled fairly is described in the guide handling separations decently.

First steps for this week

• Is there a tension in the team that everyone talks about except those involved? Write down what you have concretely observed.
• Classify it: task, process, or relationship conflict? And which Glasl stage is it at?
• Check whether an unclear responsibility is behind it, and clarify that first.
• If the conflict hinders the work, plan two one-on-one conversations followed by a joint conversation with a follow-up date.
• If it does not hinder the work, keep observing, but hold back on attempts at clarification.

Conclusion: when to intervene, and how?

The question was
an owner should intervene in a team conflict and how to run the conversation. The answer depends on the type of conflict. Task conflicts belong on the table, with facts, criteria, and a decision, as long as they stay factual. Process conflicts are best resolved through clear responsibilities. Relationship conflicts do not have to be resolved by the owner in every case. Research even suggests letting personal friction rest as long as the work does not suffer.

The owner must intervene where the conflict blocks cooperation. Then a six-step conversation helps, ending with a written agreement and a follow-up date. An owner who proceeds this way will not end every dispute. But they will prevent a dispute from steering the business.