Managing Conflicts: Understanding What Fuels Them and Restoring Relationships
When a conflict breaks out in a team, one of the first reflexes is to intervene to calm things down. Even if it works in some cases, it often starts again after a period of calm. You may reorganize the team to reduce contact between the people involved, but you notice the problem resurfaces elsewhere, sometimes in a different form.
Managing a conflict is rarely just about solving the visible problem. You need to understand what keeps it in place and try to restore relationships to make collaboration possible again.
How Conflicts Maintain Themselves
Conflicts persist because attempts to resolve them reinforce them despite our best intentions. In a professional environment, you can observe this phenomenon in situations like:
The manager who systematically intervenes to calm the situation at each tension. The team then never learns to manage its disagreements and the conflict returns at the first opportunity. This triggers a new management intervention and undermines the team’s autonomy.
Mutual avoidance between two colleagues to avoid finding themselves in an uncomfortable situation. Each interprets the other’s silence as hostility, which feeds mistrust.
The dialogue of the deaf between two people who try to convince by multiplying explanations, without really listening to the other. From the outside, it looks like collaboration. In reality, it’s a situation that reinforces mutual resistance and can become explosive.
We understand that a conflict is rarely an isolated problem, but the symptom of a larger dynamic with possibly a particular trigger that made this dynamic visible. To avoid limiting ourselves to making the symptom disappear, it can be useful to question what maintains this conflict by looking at work organization, role clarity, decision-making processes…
Sometimes, the conflict reveals a deeper organizational problem. In this case, complementary organizational support work may be necessary to address the systemic problems that fuel the conflict.
The Traces That Conflicts Leave
A conflict that lasts leaves traces beyond the initial problem. Even if a solution has been provided, the people involved may have developed mistrust or a sense of injustice. Sometimes, unspoken things persist. The team then functions in degraded mode, jeopardizing the capacity for collaboration and delivering expected work.
This is why relationship restoration is an essential aspect of conflict management. It’s not just about solving the visible problem, but also repairing the damaged bonds and identifying the root causes of the conflict.
The restoration work focuses on the current situation and involves three levels of analysis and intervention: what each person experiences individually, what happens between people, and the impact on the collective.
The restorative approach creates the space for these three levels to be addressed simultaneously. This increases the chances of a lasting resolution of the conflict and reestablishing healthy collaboration.
How I Work on Conflicts
My approach draws inspiration from restorative circles, interest-based negotiation, and feedback methods. I create a collective dialogue space that allows highlighting the dynamics that fuel the conflict. This space is a privileged place where we say things, we listen, we play transparency on the stakes, and we imagine possible solutions together until reaching an agreement.
As a facilitator, I ensure that the session rules are respected, particularly the equitable distribution of speaking time. It’s also my role to welcome and manage difficult or tense moments that may arise in this type of space. Finally, I create the conditions for decisions and solutions to emerge from the group.
Managing a conflict doesn’t happen by chance. Here are the steps I generally follow:
1. Initial contact with a sponsor: human resources, a manager, or directly a team member contacts me. We discuss the situation to understand the context and clarify the mandate.
2. Individual interviews: I meet people individually, whether they were involved or connected to people concerned by the conflict. These interviews allow evaluating the situation from the inside, understanding different perspectives, and identifying who should participate in the collective session.
3. The collective session: this is a full day in person. Everyone must be able to be present on site, as breaks play an important role in the process and this is where the work of systemic understanding and restoration emerges.
4. Follow-up: a few weeks after the collective session, a follow-up meeting allows seeing how the situation has evolved and if adjustments are necessary.
The objective: that collaboration becomes possible again and that the team or organization learns from the situation.
What Makes It Work (or Not)
Three Essential Conditions
Clear management mandate: management must accept what will emerge from the process.
Physical presence possible: the collective session must be done in person. If a person is prevented from attending, it poses a practical problem.
Transparency on stakes: to allow relationship restoration, I work with maximum transparency, within the limits of what relates to personal matters, confidentiality, or what would put someone in danger.
What This Work Doesn’t Do
Replace legal procedures: a disciplinary or legal procedure can proceed in parallel, but I have no mandate to stop it or answer questions about its consequences. The presence of a human resources person and/or management allows linking with ongoing procedures.
Serve as a persuasion tool: conflict resolution facilitation is not a means to push through a decision or convince a party. If the intervention is instrumentalized to serve a hidden agenda, it doesn’t work.
Guarantee a type of result: I cannot make predictions. Sometimes, the result is a finding of incompatibility. Sometimes, it leads to a departure. Sometimes, we’re surprised by what emerges. The goal is to restore communication so that things that need to be said are said with more serenity.
When (Not) to Implement Such an Approach?
This approach requires time and energy, sometimes a simpler intervention is sufficient. Particularly if the conflict is recent and dialogue attempts haven’t been made yet, or if the team has the capacity to manage the situation itself.
Conversely, it may be necessary to use this approach in the following situations:
- The conflict persists despite your resolution attempts
- You are a stakeholder in the conflict, directly or indirectly
- The situation requires a neutral speaking space that you cannot guarantee
- Relationships are too damaged for dialogue to happen without an external framework
For Whom This Work Makes Sense
This approach is suitable when a conflict drags on and impacts collaboration and work. It requires time and commitment from the people involved, but allows for a more lasting resolution.
If you are a leader, HR, or in a team in conflict looking for a way out, an initial conversation allows seeing if this approach fits your situation.
Let’s Discuss Your Situation
An initial conversation helps clarify if external intervention can help.
30 minutes to understand your situation and see what approach would be useful - free and no commitment