Purpose

This playbook gives you a practical framework for handling conflict on your team. It covers how to spot conflict early, how to have the first conversations, how to bring people together, when to escalate, and how to rebuild trust afterwards. It does not require you to be a mediator or a therapist. It requires you to be present, direct, and willing to name what you see.

The manager's role in conflict is not to make people like each other. It is to ensure the conflict does not damage the team's ability to work together, and to help both parties reach a workable resolution.

When to Use This Playbook

• You are aware of tension between two people or two groups on your team
• Someone has come to you to complain about a colleague
• You have noticed signals of unaddressed conflict (see below) and need to act
• A conflict has become visible enough that other team members are aware of it
• You have already had informal conversations and the tension has not resolved
• You need to decide whether to escalate to HR or a skip-level

Before You Start

Be honest about your own position:

• Do you have a view about who is right? Note it, then set it aside. Your job is not to referee, it is to help both parties work together.
• Are you conflict-averse? Most managers are. Notice if your instinct is to minimise or smooth over rather than to name and work through.
• Is there anything about this conflict that involves you - a decision you made, feedback you gave or did not give, a structural problem you have not addressed?

Gather observations, not opinions:

Before your first conversation, write down what you have actually observed - specific behaviours, specific incidents, specific impacts on the team. Avoid characterising people ("he is difficult", "she is aggressive"). Stay with behaviour ("in the last three retros, X has interrupted Y before Y has finished their point").

Decide on urgency:

• Is there an immediate risk to safety, wellbeing, or inclusion? Act today.
• Is there a productivity or collaboration impact that is visible to the team? Act this week.
• Is this a low-level tension that you want to address before it escalates? Act this sprint.

Types of Conflict

Not all conflict is the same. Understanding the type shapes your response.

Task Conflict

Disagreement about what to do - technical approach, product direction, priorities, ways of working.

This type of conflict can be productive. Teams that have no task conflict tend to be either very homogeneous or conflict-avoidant. Healthy task conflict produces better decisions, surfaces risks, and creates psychological safety for disagreement.

When it becomes a problem: when it is personalised, when the same arguments keep recurring because decisions are not being made and committed to, or when one party simply refuses to engage with the other's perspective.

Process Conflict

Disagreement about how to do things - who owns what, how decisions are made, what the standards are, how work is handed off.

Often a proxy for something else. People arguing about process are sometimes really arguing about respect, recognition, or power. Look for what is underneath.

When it becomes a problem: when it creates inefficiency, when the same process questions keep arising, or when process disputes are being used to block or undermine individuals.

Relationship Conflict

Personal antipathy - dislike, distrust, resentment, or contempt between individuals.

This is the type you most need to address. Relationship conflict has no productive form. It reduces collaboration, damages team culture, and tends to escalate if unaddressed. It is also the type managers most want to avoid, which is why it is the most commonly unaddressed.

When it becomes a problem: it is always a problem, but it becomes visible when it starts affecting the team's ability to deliver - people refusing to work together, excluding each other from decisions, briefing others against each other.

Signals That Conflict Is Present and Unaddressed

You will often know something is wrong before anyone tells you directly. Watch for:

In meetings:

• Silence from someone who is normally engaged
• Short, clipped responses between two people
• One person speaking over or dismissing another
• Decisions that keep being reopened
• People aligning into factions and always supporting the same positions

In collaboration:

• Work being handed off without communication
• Duplicated work where people are avoiding sharing
• People going around each other to get things done
• PRs or design documents that receive unusually harsh or dismissive reviews

In 1-1s:

• Someone expressing frustration about a colleague in every session
• Someone being vague about what they are working on
• Someone asking to be moved to a different team without a clear reason
• Increased absence or latency in responses

Informally:

• You hear from a third party that two people have fallen out
• The energy in team sessions feels off
• Small interactions carry an unusual charge

When you see these signals, name what you have observed - to yourself first, then to the individual.

The Process

Step 1 - Have Individual Conversations First

Never bring people into a joint conversation before you have spoken to each of them separately. You do not yet know what the conflict is actually about, and a joint conversation without this groundwork usually makes things worse.

The structure for the individual conversation:

1. Set the context without labelling or judging

"I want to talk about something I have noticed. This is not about blame - I want to understand what is happening from your perspective."

2. Name what you have observed specifically

"I have noticed that in our last three planning sessions, you and [colleague] have had some tense exchanges. The tone has been quite sharp from both sides."

3. Ask open questions and listen

• "What is your understanding of what is happening between you two?"
• "When did this start? What triggered it?"
• "How is this affecting your ability to work?"
• "What do you need from me, and what do you need from them?"

4. Do not take sides or share the other person's perspective

Do not say "well [colleague] feels that you..." at this stage. You have not yet heard both sides and you risk breaking confidence.

5. Be clear about next steps

"I am going to have a similar conversation with [colleague]. I would like to bring you both together afterwards. Is there anything I should know before I do that?"

Things not to say in the individual conversation:

• "I am sure they did not mean it" - you do not know that, and it dismisses the person's experience
• "You both need to sort this out" - they have not managed to, which is why you are involved
• "I cannot take sides" - you have not been asked to take a side; you have been asked to help
• "These things happen in teams" - true but unhelpful

Step 2 - Assess What You Are Dealing With

After both individual conversations, stop and assess:

Questions to answer:

• What is the conflict actually about? (Not the presenting issue - the underlying one)
• Is this task conflict, process conflict, or relationship conflict?
• Do both parties want to resolve it, or does one party want to win?
• Is there a power imbalance that is relevant? (Seniority, tenure, influence)
• Is there anything that might make this an HR matter? (Harassment, discrimination, bullying - if yes, stop and read the escalation section now)
• Is there a structural or process issue that has contributed to this that you need to address separately?

Decide your approach:

• If the conflict has a clear structural cause (unclear ownership, ambiguous priorities, overlapping roles), fix the structure and check in with both parties
• If it is interpersonal and both parties want to resolve it, move to Step 3
• If one party does not want to engage or has escalated beyond your ability to manage, move to the escalation section

Step 3 - The Joint Conversation

Only do this once you have completed Step 1 and Step 2.

Before the meeting:

• Tell each person separately that you are bringing them together, what the format will be, and what you need from them
• "I am going to bring you and [colleague] together for about 45 minutes. The goal is not to relitigate what happened - it is to agree how you are going to work together going forward. I need you to come willing to listen, not just to respond."

Setting up the room:

• In person if possible, or video if not
• No observers
• A private space with no interruptions
• You at a table, not between them

The opening:

"Thank you both for being here. I want to be clear about what this meeting is and is not. It is not a hearing and I am not going to ask you to justify your positions. What I want us to leave with is a clear, shared understanding of how we are going to work together. I am going to ask each of you to speak without interruption. I will manage the time. After we have both heard each other's perspective, we will work on what comes next."

Step 1 of the joint conversation - each person speaks

Ask person A to describe the impact of the conflict on them and their work. Not what the other person did - the impact.

"[Person A], can you tell [Person B] what the impact of this situation has been for you - on your work and on how you feel about coming to work?"

Then ask Person B to reflect back what they heard before responding.

"[Person B], before you respond - can you tell me what you heard [Person A] say? Not what you think about it - just what you heard."

Then reverse. Person B shares impact. Person A reflects back.

This structure is deliberate. It forces both parties to listen rather than prepare their rebuttal.

Step 2 of the joint conversation - what does each person need?

"[Person A], what would you need from [Person B] to be able to work together effectively going forward?"

Make the answers specific and behavioural. Vague answers like "respect" or "better communication" need to be turned into concrete behaviours.

"When you say respect - what would that look like in practice? What would you see [Person B] doing differently?"

Step 3 of the joint conversation - agree what changes

Summarise the asks on both sides and get agreement on what each person commits to:

"What I am hearing is: [Person A] needs [specific thing], and [Person B] needs [specific thing]. Can each of you commit to those? And if it is not working, what is the agreement - that you come to me rather than let it build again?"

Write it down. Not in a formal document - a brief summary email that you send to both of them afterwards.

Closing the meeting:

"I want to be honest with you both - one conversation does not fix everything. What I am asking for is a genuine effort from both of you. I will check in with each of you separately in two weeks. If anything comes up in the meantime, come to me."

Step 4 - Follow Up

Two weeks later - individual check-ins:

• "How has it been since our conversation?"
• "Has anything come up that you wanted to flag?"
• "Is there anything you need from me?"

If things have improved: acknowledge it. "I have noticed things seem better between you two. That is not easy and it reflects well on both of you."

If things have not improved: go back to Step 2 and reassess. You may need to escalate, adjust the structure, or accept that these two people cannot work effectively together.

When to Escalate

Escalate to HR if:

• There is any suggestion of harassment, bullying, or discrimination
• A person's wellbeing or safety is at risk
• The conflict involves a grievance that has been formally raised
• One party is making threats of any kind
• The conflict involves a protected characteristic (race, gender, disability, age, religion, etc.)

Do not try to manage these situations without HR involvement. You will make it worse and you will expose both yourself and your organisation to significant risk.

Escalate to your manager or skip-level if:

• You are personally involved in the conflict in a way that compromises your neutrality
• The conflict has been going on for a long time and is entrenched
• You have tried the joint conversation approach and it has not worked
• The conflict is between you and a member of your team (in which case, involve your own manager from the start)

Escalate to a professional mediator if:

• Both parties agree to mediation
• The conflict is complex, longstanding, or involves significant emotional harm
• You have exhausted your own ability to progress it
• The stakes are high (senior people, significant team impact)

When to Separate People

Sometimes the right answer is to accept that two people cannot work effectively together and to change the structure.

This is not failure. Forcing people who genuinely cannot work together to keep working together is a management failure. Recognising when separation is the right answer is good judgment.

Consider separation when:

• You have made a genuine effort to work through the conflict and it has not resolved
• The relationship is causing significant disruption to the wider team
• One or both parties are considering leaving because of the conflict
• The level of contempt between the parties is such that rebuilding trust is unrealistic
• The conflict has a structural root cause (competing for the same role, overlapping accountabilities) that cannot be fixed without changing the structure

Separation options:

• Moving one person to a different team
• Changing the reporting line
• Restructuring responsibilities so the two people interact less
• A role change for one party
• In extreme cases, one party leaving

If separation involves a redundancy or role change, involve HR.

How to Rebuild Trust After Conflict

A resolved conflict is not the same as trust rebuilt. After the immediate conflict is managed:

Give it time. Trust is rebuilt through consistent behaviour over time, not through a conversation. Do not rush this.

Create low-stakes collaboration opportunities. A shared project or problem that requires both parties to contribute, where the stakes are not high, can help rebuild working trust without pressure.

Acknowledge progress. When you see positive signs - a constructive exchange in a meeting, a problem solved together, an acknowledgement from one to the other - name it, at least in your individual check-ins.

Watch for backsliding. Resolved conflicts can re-ignite under pressure. Deadlines, setbacks, and team stress are flashpoints. Increase your check-in frequency during high-pressure periods.

Do not assume it is fixed. Check in for longer than you think you need to.

The Manager's Role vs a Mediator's Role

You are not a mediator. A mediator is a trained neutral party whose role is to help two parties reach agreement without taking a position. You are a manager with accountability for team performance and culture.

The difference in practice:

Being a manager means you can - and sometimes should - make judgments. If one party is behaving in a way that is clearly inappropriate, you can say so. If the situation requires a structural change, you can make one. You do not have to be entirely neutral. You do have to be fair.

What Good Looks Like

A manager who handles conflict well:

• Spots the signals early and does not wait for things to escalate
• Has the individual conversations promptly and with curiosity, not judgment
• Names what they have observed with specificity - not labels or character assessments
• Creates the conditions for the joint conversation to succeed by preparing both parties well
• Does not take sides but does not pretend to have no view
• Follows up for long enough to know whether the resolution is real
• Escalates without hesitation when the situation is beyond their role
• Recognises when separation is the right answer and acts on it
• Understands the difference between productive task conflict and destructive relationship conflict - and protects the former while addressing the latter

Common Failures

Waiting too long. The most common failure. The conflict that could have been resolved in a conversation becomes entrenched over months.

Smoothing it over. Telling both parties to "work it out" or suggesting it is "just a personality clash" without doing the work. This leaves the conflict underground where it grows.

Taking sides. You hear one person's account and align with it. The other person feels unfairly treated. Now you are part of the problem.

Sharing one person's account with the other. "Well [colleague] said you were aggressive in that meeting." You have broken confidence and inflamed the situation.

Making the joint conversation a hearing. If one or both people feel they are being judged or are there to defend themselves, the conversation will not produce a resolution.

Fixing the symptom, not the cause. The conflict keeps recurring because the underlying cause - unclear ownership, competing incentives, a structural problem - has not been addressed.

Not following up. The joint conversation happens, both parties say the right things, and you move on. Two months later the same dynamic has re-emerged.

Avoiding escalation because it feels like failure. Knowing when to involve HR or your skip-level is good judgment, not a sign that you have failed.

Checklist

Before Your First Conversation

• Specific behaviours and incidents documented (not characterisations)
• Type of conflict assessed (task, process, relationship)
• Urgency assessed - is this a safety or wellbeing issue?
• Is there an HR matter that should be escalated immediately?
• Are you personally involved in a way that compromises your neutrality?

Individual Conversations

• Spoken to each party separately before any joint conversation
• Named what you observed without labelling the person
• Asked open questions and listened
• Not taken sides or shared the other person's account
• Confirmed next steps with each person

Joint Conversation

• Both parties informed of the format and purpose in advance
• Private space confirmed, no observers
• Each person given uninterrupted time to share impact
• Each person asked to reflect back what they heard before responding
• Specific, behavioural commitments agreed from each party
• Summary email sent to both parties after the meeting

Follow-Up

• Individual check-ins scheduled for two weeks after the joint conversation
• Any backsliding noted and addressed promptly
• Structural causes of conflict addressed separately if relevant
• Decision made about whether the resolution is genuine or whether further action is needed

Escalation Decision

• Harassment, bullying, or discrimination - referred to HR
• Personal conflict or neutrality compromised - involved own manager
• Long-standing, entrenched conflict - considered professional mediation
• Resolution not possible - considered structural separation