I know that most managers find managing people difficult precisely because of the need to resolve conflicts. In this article, I will try to explain my view of conflicts and provide specific tools that can be used to resolve issues.
Firstly, I suggest trying to view conflict as an engine of change – tension and opposites drive the world forward; it is not “harmony that will solve everything”, but friction that creates new forms.
In this logic, conflict = energy of transition: the old rules no longer work, and the new ones have not yet been born.
And so, conflicts quickly reveal where you have:
blurred roles in the team
floating rules
injustice – rules are created for individuals
and ‘discussing complex issues in correspondence’ (chats for complex topics – the worst idea of the year).
There are three typical pitfalls for a manager:
Conflict is interpreted as a relationship problem, not a system problem. Instead of ‘we don’t have a rule for transferring tasks,’ it sounds like ‘she doesn’t respect me.’
Reactions replace the process. Each case is decided ‘on a case-by-case basis,’ without standards or fixed agreements.
Chat becomes the main battlefield. Asynchronous communication exacerbates misunderstandings: tone cannot be read, emotions multiply, screenshots ‘live forever’.
I recommend tackling the problem systematically when conflicts become a series: the same topics, the same types of people — only in a new series. In this case, the manager becomes a 24/7 psychologist: putting out fires, mediating, sorting out emotions, while work stands still.
Therefore, the conclusion is simple: if you don’t want to be the team’s psychotherapist, build processes that will work for you.
The practice of strong HR and leadership schools suggests a different role: the manager is the architect of conditions and the moderator of the process. That is, not ‘reconciling people,’ but building rules of the game, tools for conversation, and follow-up mechanics.
Next is a framework for turning conflicts from ‘drama’ into a manageable system.
Conflicts in teams are inevitable: different goals, different paces, different quality standards, different interpretations of ‘normal.’ The problem is not that conflicts arise, but how the manager ‘handles’ them.
In many organisations, managers unwittingly become emotional dispatchers: they listen, mediate, sort out insults, and ‘put out fires’ in chat rooms. This is exhausting, reduces productivity, and creates a toxic incentive: the louder the conflict, the more attention it receives.
Below is a framework that combines approaches to psychological safety, structured ‘difficult conversations,’ SCARF logic of social triggers, the principle of ‘directness + care,’ styles of behaviour in conflict, and basic negotiation techniques.
Why managers get stuck in the role of ‘psychologist’
Principle 1. Psychological safety is not ‘everyone is nice,’ but ‘it’s okay to talk about problems.’
Teams work better when people can raise issues without fear of humiliation. It’s not about comfort. It’s about being able to name reality before it explodes.
What a manager does:
sets the norm: ‘we talk about problems early on’
separates the person from the behaviour/situation
supports uncomfortable but constructive signals (‘thank you for saying that’)
Psychological safety is the foundation on which all other conflict management tools work.
Principle 2. Difficult conversations require structure, not intuition.
In heated moments, people either attack or disappear. The manager’s task is to restore the safety of the conversation and quickly move on to specifics.
Manager’s micro-script: ‘goal + respect + fact’
Goal: ‘My goal is stable teamwork and quality service.’
Respect: ‘I respect you as a professional; we are talking about the situation, not the person.’
Fact: ‘Here’s what happened…’ (without ‘always/never,’ without judgements).
Next, a brief management logic:
Impact: ‘This is what it led to (client/schedule/team/money).’
Standard: ‘This is how we should work.’
Request: ‘What is needed to meet the standard?’
Agreement: ‘We agree on 1-2 specific actions + a deadline.’
It sounds ‘dry’ — but that’s what reduces the drama.
Principle 3. SCARF: Often, conflict is triggered not by an event, but by a social threat
Many ‘explosions’ are not about content, but about how a person feels: devaluation, injustice, loss of control.
Five triggers to check:
Status: ‘I was humiliated/devalued.’
Certainty: ‘Nothing is clear; the rules are fluid.’
Autonomy: ‘I am being controlled; I have no influence.’
Relatedness: ‘I am a stranger here; I am not trusted.’
Fairness: ‘it’s unfair; double standards’
Practice for managers: before ‘reconciling’, ask yourself:
which trigger was activated – and which rule or decision will remove it?
Don’t ‘calm down’, but remove the cause of the threat: clarity, equal rules, transparent criteria.
Principle 4. Radical Candour: directness without cruelty, care without fuss
The most effective tone in conflict is calm directness. It removes passive aggression and makes expectations predictable.
Conversation formula:
Description (what happened)
Impact (how it hurts)
Expectations (what is the standard)
Support (what will help meet the standard)
This turns a ‘conflict of personalities’ into a ‘behavioural correction within the system.’
Principle 5. Thomas-Kilmann: a manager needs not a ‘position’ but a choice of mode
One of the reasons for manager burnout is the attempt to always be in ‘peacemaker’ mode. Instead, it is useful to consciously choose a style of interaction.
Quick navigation:
Competing – when it comes to standards, safety, discipline, reputation.
Collaborating – when you need to change the process or distribution of roles.
Pause (Avoiding temporarily) – when emotions are running high and cooling down is needed, but with a return at a specified time.
A strong leader is neither ‘nice’ nor ‘tough’. They are flexible and consistent.
Principle 6. Negotiation approach: manage the frame, not the reaction
When conflict flares up, the brain provokes a reaction. Negotiation techniques offer something else: take a step back and manage the frame.
Practical steps:
Pause before responding (do not respond ‘emotionally’)
Separate positions from interests (‘she wants a different schedule’ vs. ‘she needs certainty/fairness’)
Agree on criteria (‘what is the right thing to do?’ = ‘what rule do we use to decide?’)
This shifts the conflict to the realm of decisions.
The most important operational policy: ‘we don’t resolve conflicts in chat’
Chat is great for facts and coordination. It’s bad for difficult conversations.
Introduce a team rule:
In chat – facts without interpretation.
Next – agree on the format (10-minute call/meeting).
Afterwards – summary and agreements in chat (1 message).
This removes 70% of unnecessary noise.
Practical toolkit for managers
1) Checklist before the conversation (3 minutes)
☐ I have facts, not ‘versions’.
☐ I know the goal: what should change after the conversation.
☐ I chose a short synchronous conversation instead of a chat.
☐ I can name the standard/rule.
☐ I know what the follow-up will be and when.
2) Procedure for a 10-minute ‘conflict meeting’
☐ Goal and framework: ‘deciding how to proceed.’
☐ Facts (in turn, briefly).
☐ Impact on work/service/team.
☐ Standard or rule (what should be).
☐ Agreements (1-2 actions, responsible persons, deadlines).
☐ Follow-up (when we check).
3) Red lines: when intervention is mandatory
☐ Damage to the client/quality/safety/money.
☐ Repeated violations of standards.
☐ Humiliation, toxic ‘jokes’, passive aggression.
☐ Double standards.
☐ Conflict ‘going round in circles’ without resolution.
4) Follow-up (what distinguishes a ‘manager’ from a ‘psychologist’)
☐ Check in after 3-7 days.
☐ If repeated, a predetermined consequence/procedure is applied.
☐ If not repeated, reinforcement of the standard (‘I see progress — keep it up’).
Conclusion
Conflicts are not a system failure. They are a signal that something is lacking in terms of clarity, standards or fairness.
A manager who stops ‘reconciling people’ and starts building a process gains two things: a stronger team and their own energy back.
