In short
- Start by understanding your role in the conflict. Are you trying to resolve your own disagreement, working through competing demands with several people, or helping two others reach an agreement? Each situation asks something different of you.
- DEVELOR’s Assertive Conflict Resolution program explores these situations through Duels, Battles and Peace Talks. We use that structure below to look at three workplace examples and what can help in each.
- Different opinions can reveal problems that need attention. The aim is to keep people talking about the work, understand what matters to them, and reach an agreement they can act on.
- For HR and L&D, recurring conflicts are a useful starting point for development. They show where people need practice and where leaders also need to clarify priorities, responsibilities, or decisions.
In Equilibrium, people take a drug that suppresses their emotions to keep the peace. When one man misses a dose, he begins questioning the world around him.
At work, agreement can feel reassuring too. Nobody challenges the deadline, so we move on. But a concern can disappear from the conversation while the problem remains.
In a 2025 Acas and NatCen survey in Great Britain, 49% of respondents who had experienced workplace conflict reported reduced motivation or commitment. Ten per cent reported resigning as a consequence. These figures refer to people who experienced conflict, rather than the workforce as a whole.
Addressing a disagreement starts with a practical question: What kind of situation are we dealing with?
Three situations that need different responses
DEVELOR’s Assertive Conflict Resolution program uses three settings: Duels, Battles, and Peace Talks. They offer a practical way to consider both the people involved and your role. You may need to speak for yourself, work through several interests, or lead a discussion between others.
These are different situations, not steps every conflict goes through.
Duels: Don’t Destroy, Disarm!
You are directly involved in a disagreement with another person. It might concern a missed handover, an unrealistic request, or feedback you believe is unfair. You need to explain your concern clearly and understand the other person’s view well enough to discuss a solution.
Imagine Anna in her annual review. Her manager says she should have flagged a project delay earlier. Anna remembers raising the risk in October and being told to focus on solutions.
“You never listen” might express her frustration, but it leaves them arguing about their relationship. A more useful opening would be: “I raised the deadline risk in October, and we kept the original plan. Can we look at what happened then and agree how I should raise a similar concern next time?”
Before the conversation, prepare three things:
- The specific event or behavior you want to discuss.
- Its effect on the work or on you.
- What you want to understand and what you would like to change.
The goal is an agreement both people understand. Anna might commit to updating the forecast whenever a milestone is at risk. Her manager might commit to reviewing the options with her before confirming the plan.
This is also where communication practice helps. Assertiveness in Critical Conversations gives people opportunities to practice receiving feedback, declining requests, sharing bad news, and responding to criticism.
Battles: Play Strategy!
Several people have a stake in the disagreement, and a solution for one may create a problem for another. Before trying to persuade anyone, find out what each party needs, what limits they face, and who has authority to make the necessary decisions.
Sales has promised a launch date. Operations cannot deliver the full scope with the available team. Finance will not approve extra spending. The client expects the original agreement to stand.
Start with a simple conflict map:
- Position: What is each party asking for?
- Interest: Why does it matter to them?
- Constraint: What can they change, and what needs approval?
- Decision: Who needs to agree before the work can move forward?
“The date cannot move” may reflect a contractual commitment, a public announcement or a preference. Those are different starting points. Equally, “We need more people” may be one possible answer to a capacity problem.
Once the reasons are clear, the group can compare options: a smaller first release, a later date, additional resources, or a change to other priorities. The discussion should end with a decision, an owner, and an updated plan.
For HR and L&D, this distinction matters. People may need practice negotiating and questioning assumptions. They also need a clear route for decisions they cannot make themselves.
Peace Talks: Build Alignment!
You are leading a discussion between other people who have not resolved their disagreement. Your responsibility is to help them explain the issue, hear each other, and agree on how to work together. Be clear about which decisions they can make and which remain yours.
Two colleagues keep blaming each other for late handovers. Both come to their manager with examples of the other’s mistakes. The temptation is to decide who is right and tell them to get on with it.
First, check whether a joint conversation is appropriate and hear each person’s account. When bringing them together, define the purpose: “We need to agree how the handover will work, including what happens when something is missing.”
During the discussion:
- Ask for specific examples and give each person time to speak.
- Separate what happened from assumptions about intent.
- Clarify what each person needs to complete their work.
- Record the agreement and set a date to review it.
A leader may also need to acknowledge their own contribution. If responsibilities were unclear, that needs fixing. Helping others reach agreement does not remove the leader’s responsibility to make decisions.
These conversations are not suitable for every situation. Allegations of bullying or serious misconduct need an appropriate organizational response, rather than pressure to reach a compromise.
When the same conflict keeps returning across a team
Sometimes individual conversations lead to agreements, yet the same difficulties appear elsewhere in the team. People withhold information, question decisions after meetings or repeatedly miss handovers. At that point, look at the team’s everyday working habits, not just the latest disagreement.
Different views can still be useful. A meta-analysis of 116 studies involving 8,880 groups found that relationship conflict was associated with poorer group outcomes. Findings for task conflict were more conditional, with more favorable links to performance when it was less connected to personal conflict.
Ask the team how it discusses disagreement, makes decisions, and checks commitments. A leader can set direction while leaving room for people to challenge assumptions or point out risks.
Insights Discovery – Team Effectiveness can help colleagues explore communication preferences. Depending on the issue, Team Sociomapping or team coaching may also be relevant options to discuss with DEVELOR.
What should HR and L&D develop?
Begin with a situation people recognize. Ask whether they struggle to address their own conflict, work through competing interests, or lead a conversation between others. That gives a development program a clear purpose and makes it easier to discuss what should change afterward.
The DEVELOR L&D Kaleidoscope 2026 Report supports the relevance of these skills. Giving and receiving feedback was selected by 26.8% of respondents among the most important leadership competencies; communication and conflict resolution were selected by 23.9%.
Assertive Conflict Resolution provides the central structure. Other developments can support a specific need: personal insight, communication practice, feedback across generations, or work with the whole team.
Recognizing that something needs to change is a useful first step. Bring that situation to DEVELOR, and we can help you work out what your people need to practice and how to support them at work.
Join our international webinar on 15 October: From differences to team alignment
How can leaders make room for different views when deadlines are tight? Join our online RE/Think HR webinar on 15 October 2026 for practical examples, interactive exercises and experiences shared by leaders. We will explore misunderstandings and what helps teams work through their differences.
Workplace conflict management FAQ for HR and L&D leaders
Start with your role and the situation. If you are directly involved, explain your concern and work toward an agreement with the other person. If several parties have competing demands, first understand their interests and who can make the necessary decisions. If you are helping others resolve a disagreement, your task is to guide the discussion fairly and clarify the boundaries. DEVELOR’s Duels, Battles and Peace Talks structure provides a practical way to distinguish these situations. They can overlap, so check whether your role changes as the discussion develops.
Prepare a specific example and explain how it affected the work or your ability to do your job. Avoid guessing the other person’s intentions. Ask how they saw the situation, and listen for information you may have missed. Then discuss what each of you could do differently. For example, a disagreement about a late task might lead to an agreement about when to flag delays and who should help reset priorities. If the issue cannot be resolved directly, seek appropriate support rather than repeating the same conversation without progress.
Find out who is affected and who has authority to approve a solution. Ask each party to explain both what they want and why it matters. This helps separate a preferred solution from the underlying need. Bring the constraints into the discussion, including time, resources, and commitments already made. Compare the options together and be explicit about what each would require. If the group cannot make the decision, identify who can. Finish with clear responsibilities so that the agreement changes how the work proceeds.
First, understand the issue and check whether a joint discussion is appropriate. Explain your role and what decisions you may need to make as their manager. Give both employees time to describe specific events without interruption, then clarify what each needs from the other. Help them agree on practical changes they can carry out. Address any unclear responsibilities or conflicting instructions that contributed to the problem. Arrange a follow-up to see whether the agreement is working. Serious misconduct concerns may require a different process.
Review the goals, examples, and changes in priorities before the meeting. Be ready to explain the basis for your assessment and invite the employee to share their own account. If they challenge the feedback, ask which part they see differently rather than treating disagreement as a problem in itself. Consider whether your own decisions or earlier responses contributed to the outcome. Keep the discussion focused on what happened, what can be learned, and what needs to change. Agree on actions and support, including any facts that still need checking.
Look for a pattern across different people and situations. If handovers repeatedly fail or decisions are routinely challenged afterward, the team may need to examine how it works together. Ask how information is shared, how priorities are agreed, and whether people can raise concerns during meetings. Individual conversations may still be necessary, but they may not address a shared problem. HR and L&D can then consider support for the whole team alongside changes to its working arrangements. Progress should be visible in everyday work, such as clearer decisions and more reliable follow-through.
