Skip to content
All articles

Resolving Conflict in 6 Steps

Dean Jain

Dean Jain

Senior Staff Software Engineer · Enterprise AI, Data & Cloud Architect

· 5 min read

Conflict ResolutionLeadershipCollaboration
---
config:
  theme: dark
  fontSize: 17
  themeVariables:
    fontFamily: "Comic Sans MS, Comic Neue, Chalkboard SE, cursive"
---
flowchart LR
    S1["1️⃣ Frame the<br/>problem"]:::gov --> S2["2️⃣ Active<br/>listening"]:::obs
    S2 --> S3["3️⃣ Find areas of<br/>agreement"]:::gate
    S3 --> S4["4️⃣ Explore<br/>solutions together"]:::server
    S4 --> S5["5️⃣ Decide on<br/>a plan"]:::good
    S5 --> S6["6️⃣ Look<br/>ahead"]:::good
    classDef gov fill:#E0D6F5,stroke:#9B7EDE,stroke-width:2px,color:#0F172A
    classDef obs fill:#AED6F1,stroke:#2E86C1,stroke-width:2px,color:#0F172A
    classDef gate fill:#D7C3F2,stroke:#8E5BD0,stroke-width:2px,color:#0F172A
    classDef server fill:#A8E6D0,stroke:#2FA37C,stroke-width:2px,color:#0F172A
    classDef good fill:#BFEFC8,stroke:#3FA34D,stroke-width:2px,color:#0F172A

Figure 1: A repeatable six-step path from a stuck disagreement to an agreed plan.

Conflict between teams that don’t report to each other is where good projects quietly die. The consumer team wants to build its own thing, the platform team wants adoption. Business wants one reusable API, engineering wants clean separation. It feels like a personality clash. It almost never is. Most conflict is a collision of interests, and the moment you treat it as a problem to solve rather than a fight to win, a structured six-step process does what willpower and good intentions can’t. Here’s the process, and how to run it across the org.

TL;DR

  • Conflict is usually about interests, not people. Examine the other side’s underlying motivations and you often find a mutually agreeable option hiding there.
  • Three types: personalities/work styles, what to do, and how to do it. The last two are the most common and the most solvable.
  • Six steps: frame the problem → listen actively → find agreement → explore solutions together → decide a plan → look ahead.
  • A good plan satisfies interests, is fair, preserves the relationship, and is written down.
  • When you’re stuck, escalate or route around. Take a break, bring in a neutral senior party, or get your need met another way.

1. It’s about interests, not positions

The instinct in conflict is to diagnose the other person’s character. They’re difficult, territorial, irrational. That framing guarantees a stalemate, because you can’t negotiate someone’s personality.

Shift from positions to interests instead. A position is the demand someone states; an interest is the need underneath it. Examine your counterpart’s underlying motivations and you’ll often discover options for a solution you can both accept. The platform-vs-consumer fight isn’t about ego; it’s two teams optimizing for different, legitimate goals.

It helps to name which type of conflict you’re in:

  • Personalities / work styles the genuinely interpersonal friction.
  • Disagreement over what to do different views on the goal or priority.
  • Disagreement over how to do it agreement on the goal, conflict on the method.

The last two, the what and the how, make up most workplace conflict, and they’re also the most tractable, because they’re about substance you can reason through. Even the first type softens once you reframe from “who’s right” to “what does each of us actually need here.”

Start every conflict by separating the people from the problem.

2. The six steps

The sequence matters, because each step sets up the next, and skipping ahead to solutions before you’ve found common ground is why most attempts fail.

  1. Frame the problem. Describe the difficulty and the differences in specific terms. Encourage everyone to express their emotions, motivations, and viewpoints constructively. You can’t solve a problem nobody has stated plainly.
  2. Practice active listening. Full attention, clarifying questions, and paraphrasing to show you understood. People won’t move until they feel heard this step does more work than it looks like.
  3. Identify areas of agreement. Find common ground and shared goals; avoid all-or-nothing thinking. Establishing what you both want first turns adversaries into co-problem-solvers.
  4. Explore solutions together. Look for creative options that address each side’s concerns and interests. Be collaborative the goal is an option that works for everyone, not a winner.
  5. Decide on a plan. Agree on how to end the conflict and move forward. A good plan:
    • satisfies as many interests as possible,
    • is fair and reasonable,
    • preserves the relationship, and
    • is documented in writing.
  6. Look ahead. Decide how you’ll measure success and how you’ll communicate going forward so the same conflict doesn’t quietly regrow.
---
config:
  theme: dark
  fontSize: 17
  themeVariables:
    fontFamily: "Comic Sans MS, Comic Neue, Chalkboard SE, cursive"
---
flowchart TB
    PLAN["📝 A good resolution plan"]:::gov --> C1["satisfies the most interests"]:::good
    PLAN --> C2["is fair &amp; reasonable"]:::good
    PLAN --> C3["preserves the relationship"]:::good
    PLAN --> C4["is written down"]:::good
    classDef gov fill:#E0D6F5,stroke:#9B7EDE,stroke-width:2px,color:#0F172A
    classDef good fill:#BFEFC8,stroke:#3FA34D,stroke-width:2px,color:#0F172A

Figure 2: The test for step 5. A resolution that satisfies interests, is fair, keeps the relationship intact, and is documented.

The written plan (step 5) is the step people skip and regret. A verbal agreement evaporates under pressure. A documented one is what you point back to when the conflict tries to resurface a month later.

3. When you can’t resolve it

Sometimes the six steps stall. Don’t grind you have three honest exits:

---
config:
  theme: dark
  fontSize: 17
  themeVariables:
    fontFamily: "Comic Sans MS, Comic Neue, Chalkboard SE, cursive"
---
flowchart TD
    STUCK["🚧 Stuck after the six steps"]:::warn --> B["⏸️ Take a break<br/>and retry"]:::obs
    STUCK --> E["⬆️ Bring in a neutral<br/>senior party to decide"]:::gate
    STUCK --> A["🔀 Get your need met<br/>another (creative) way"]:::good
    classDef warn fill:#FFE6A8,stroke:#E0A106,stroke-width:2px,color:#0F172A
    classDef obs fill:#AED6F1,stroke:#2E86C1,stroke-width:2px,color:#0F172A
    classDef gate fill:#D7C3F2,stroke:#8E5BD0,stroke-width:2px,color:#0F172A
    classDef good fill:#BFEFC8,stroke:#3FA34D,stroke-width:2px,color:#0F172A

Figure 3: Three exits when resolution stalls. Pause, escalate to a neutral decider, or route around the blockage.

  • Take a break and retry heat fades, and a second attempt with cooler heads often lands.
  • Bring in a neutral, more senior party from a different team. They may see a resolution you missed, unlock resources, or simply make the call.
  • Get your need met another way think creatively; you can sometimes get what you need without resolving the disagreement at all.

Leading the resolution as a manager. When the conflict is between your people, know when to step in. When it disrupts the work. When it’s between mismatched ranks, or has spread to others. When it’s gone personal, or when someone asks for help. Then mediate rather than dictate. Set ground rules, so each person finishes and everyone listens openly. Look for root causes, question assumptions, facilitate dialogue, and clear obstacles. Coach people to resolve their own conflicts; a team that can self-resolve scales far better than one that escalates everything to you.

Cross-functional caveat. Across teams, add back what distance erodes. Build rapport before you need it, agree on common goals, document decisions as a single source of truth, and lead with empathy. Most XFC conflict is really misalignment plus low trust; fix those upstream and the disagreements get small.

Why it matters: conflict is not a failure of the team it’s inevitable wherever smart people pursue different legitimate goals. What separates teams that thrive is having a process instead of relying on personalities to magically click. Separate the people from the problem, run the six steps, write down the plan, and escalate cleanly when stuck. Done well, a resolved conflict leaves the relationship stronger than before it started.

Further reading