Two employees on the same team start snapping at each other in meetings. It began months earlier as a small disagreement over who was responsible for responding to a particular group of customer enquiries. Nobody addressed it properly at the time. Assumptions built up, both people started avoiding each other, and what could have been a five-minute clarification turned into a genuine breakdown in the working relationship.
This is how most workplace conflict actually develops. It rarely starts as a dramatic confrontation. Conflict resolution, at its core, is about catching these situations early and working through them constructively before they harden into something bigger.
It’s worth saying plainly: disagreement itself isn’t the problem. Different opinions, different working styles and different priorities are completely normal in any team. What determines whether conflict becomes useful or damaging is how people and organisations respond to it. Safe Work Australia includes conflict and poor workplace relationships among the recognised psychosocial hazards that can affect psychological health at work, which gives Australian organisations a genuine reason to treat this as more than a soft skill.
This guide covers what conflict resolution actually means in a workplace context, why conflict happens, and the practical techniques that work when you’re the one sitting across the table from two people who currently can’t stand working together.
What Is Conflict Resolution in the Workplace?
Workplace conflict resolution is the process of identifying a disagreement, understanding the interests and concerns of everyone involved, and working towards a solution that lets people move forward productively.
Not every disagreement needs a formal process, and it’s worth being clear on the distinctions here. A disagreement is a difference of opinion, which is normal and often healthy. Conflict is what happens when that difference starts affecting the relationship or the work. A workplace dispute usually refers to a more formal disagreement, sometimes covered by a policy or agreement. Bullying and harassment are separate categories entirely, involving repeated unreasonable behaviour or specific unlawful conduct, and they need to be handled through the right formal channels rather than general conflict resolution. Performance management issues are different again: they relate to whether someone is meeting the standard expected of their role, even if a personality clash happens to be part of the backdrop.
Conflict Resolution vs Conflict Management
These terms get used interchangeably, but there’s a useful distinction. Conflict resolution generally aims to address the underlying issue and bring the disagreement to a genuine close. Conflict management is more about keeping an ongoing disagreement constructive and stopping it from escalating, which matters in situations where the underlying tension can’t be fully resolved (two departments that will always have somewhat competing priorities, for example) but still needs to be handled well day to day.
Workplace conflict rarely comes from a single cause. Most of the disputes a manager ends up mediating are actually a combination of a few of these factors layering on top of each other.
Poor or Unclear Communication
Misread emails, unstated assumptions, missing information and mismatched communication styles cause a huge share of everyday workplace friction. Someone assumes a decision has been made when it hasn’t. Someone reads terseness as hostility when it was just a rushed reply between meetings. Preferred Training Network’s communication skills training is built around closing exactly these kinds of gaps before they turn into something bigger.
Unclear Roles and Responsibilities
When it’s genuinely unclear who owns a decision, who’s accountable for an outcome, or where one person’s responsibility ends and another’s begins, friction is almost guaranteed. This is one of the most common underlying causes hiding behind conflicts that look, on the surface, like a personality clash.
Different Personalities and Working Styles
Different approaches to work aren’t a problem by themselves. Someone who wants everything mapped out in advance and someone who prefers to adapt as they go can work well together. The friction shows up when a team doesn’t have the communication skills to work through those differences constructively, and each person starts assuming the other is being difficult on purpose.
Competing Priorities and Limited Resources
Tight deadlines, stretched budgets and departments with genuinely competing objectives create real, legitimate tension. Two managers might both be right about what their own team needs, and the conflict comes from a resourcing constraint that neither of them controls.
Organisational Change
Restructures, new managers, changed responsibilities and new systems all unsettle established working relationships, even when the change itself is well handled. People are renegotiating, often without realising it, who does what and how decisions get made.
Difficult Workplace Behaviours
Persistent incivility, aggression or other inappropriate behaviour deserves its own careful mention here. Safe Work Australia recognises conflict and poor workplace relationships as a potential psychosocial hazard, and notes that harmful behaviours become hazards when they are severe, prolonged or frequent. That’s an important distinction. A single tense exchange between two colleagues having a bad week is not automatically a psychosocial hazard. A pattern of hostility that keeps happening, or one serious incident, is a different matter and needs to be treated differently.
The most effective approach to resolving workplace conflict involves addressing the issue early, separating the person from the problem, listening to understand each perspective, identifying the real underlying cause, focusing on interests rather than fixed positions, and agreeing on specific, measurable actions with a genuine follow-up.
1. Address the Conflict Early
Avoiding a disagreement rarely makes it go away. It gives assumptions and frustration time to build, and by the time someone formally complains, both people have usually already decided they’re right and the other person is impossible. A manager who notices tension building between two team members and has a brief, low-key conversation about it in week one is doing far less work than the manager who waits for a formal complaint in month three.
2. Separate the Person From the Problem
Attacking someone’s character rarely leads anywhere useful. “You’re impossible to work with” invites defensiveness and shuts the conversation down. Describing what actually happened, how it affected the work, and what needs to change instead keeps the conversation focused on something that can genuinely be fixed.
3. Listen to Understand Each Perspective
This means asking open questions rather than leading ones, resisting the urge to interrupt, summarising back what you’ve heard to check you’ve understood it correctly, clarifying assumptions rather than accepting them at face value, and acknowledging someone’s concern without necessarily agreeing that they’re right. People need to feel heard before they’re ready to move towards a solution, and skipping this step is one of the most common reasons a conflict conversation goes sideways.
4. Identify the Real Source of the Conflict
The thing people are arguing about is often not the actual problem. Two employees might appear to be fighting about deadlines when the real issue is that nobody has clarified who has authority to approve the final version of the work. Fixing the deadline argument without fixing the approval question just means the same conflict resurfaces under a different name next month.
5. Focus on Interests Rather Than Positions
A position is what someone says they want. An interest is why they want it. Asking “what do you actually need from this situation?” tends to open up options that arguing over two fixed positions never will. Someone insisting on a particular deadline might really need certainty about their own workload, which can sometimes be solved a completely different way.
6. Find Areas of Agreement
Even in a fairly heated disagreement, both people usually share some common ground: completing the project successfully, giving customers a decent experience, hitting a shared deadline, or having a workload that feels fair. Naming that shared ground out loud early in the conversation makes the rest of it considerably easier.
7. Agree on Specific Actions
“We’ll communicate better” isn’t an outcome anyone can actually check on later. Who owns which responsibility from here? What happens next, and when? How will a concern get raised if this comes up again? When will the two of you check back in? Specific, concrete actions are what actually change behaviour.
8. Follow Up
Resolution isn’t complete just because the meeting ended on a positive note. A manager who checks back in a couple of weeks later, genuinely asking whether the agreed changes are working and whether the underlying tension has actually eased, catches the situations that quietly slide back to where they started.
For a quick reference, the process above can be summarised in five stages: Recognise, Understand, Discuss, Resolve, Review.
Recognise means identifying the disagreement before it becomes entrenched, rather than waiting for it to boil over. Understand means hearing every perspective involved and working out the real underlying problem, not just the surface complaint. Discuss means creating a respectful conversation focused on facts, impacts and needs rather than blame. Resolve means agreeing on practical actions and who’s responsible for each one. Review means following up afterwards to check the solution is actually holding.
Going back to the customer enquiries example from earlier: a manager notices the tension (Recognise), talks to both employees separately to understand what each of them believes their responsibility actually is (Understand), brings them together for a conversation focused on the confusion rather than who’s at fault (Discuss), and helps them agree on a clear split of responsibilities with an escalation process for anything that falls in between (Resolve). Two weeks later, the manager checks in with both of them to see whether the new arrangement is actually working (Review).
Conflict resolution depends heavily on communication capability, and most managers who struggle with difficult conversations are missing one or two specific skills rather than lacking the ability entirely.
Active listening and asking better questions sit at the centre of this. So does emotional self-awareness, which means noticing your own frustration or defensiveness building in the moment rather than only recognising it afterwards. Assertive communication matters too, and it’s worth being clear about what that actually means: it sits between passive communication, which avoids raising the issue at all, and aggressive communication, which raises it in a way that damages the relationship. Giving and receiving feedback well, and staying focused on facts rather than assumptions, round out the core set. Preferred Training Network’s communication skills training covers active listening, workplace conversations and handling difficult interactions, and it’s a natural companion to conflict resolution work specifically.
When two employees are in genuine conflict, a manager’s role is different from resolving their own personal disagreement with someone. A practical process looks like this: speak with the people involved, understand each person’s perspective before drawing any conclusions, establish what actually happened as best you can, identify the underlying issue rather than just the surface complaint, facilitate a constructive conversation between them where that’s appropriate, agree on specific actions, document important outcomes when the situation warrants it, and follow up afterwards.
Staying fair matters more than almost anything else in this process. It’s tempting to side with whoever raised the concern first, or whoever you happen to get along with better, but doing that quietly undermines trust across the whole team, not just with the person who feels overlooked. Preferred Training Network’s conflict resolution skills training is built specifically around helping managers run this kind of process with confidence.
Difficult behaviour can make an otherwise manageable disagreement much harder to work through. Defensiveness, anger, repeated interruptions, blame-shifting, a flat refusal to cooperate, passive-aggressive comments, or a conversation that keeps tipping into high emotion all need to be managed in the moment, not just noted afterwards.
The more useful mindset here is managing the interaction rather than mentally labelling someone as “a difficult person.” That label tends to make a manager defensive and less curious about what’s actually driving the behaviour, whether that’s genuine frustration, feeling unheard, or simply not knowing a more constructive way to raise the issue. Preferred Training Network’s dealing with difficult people training helps employees and managers build practical techniques for exactly these situations.
Workplace conflict shouldn’t only be thought of as a productivity or interpersonal issue. Safe Work Australia includes conflict or poor workplace relationships and interactions among its recognised psychosocial hazards, meaning it’s something that can cause genuine psychological harm if it isn’t managed properly.
Under the model work health and safety framework, a person conducting a business or undertaking must eliminate psychosocial risks where reasonably practicable, or otherwise minimise them so far as is reasonably practicable, as set out in the model Code of Practice on managing psychosocial hazards. Organisations should pay particular attention when conflict becomes frequent, prolonged, severe, aggressive, connected to bullying or harassment, or an ongoing source of psychological risk to the people involved.
This isn’t legal advice, and it shouldn’t be treated as such. WHS requirements vary between Australian jurisdictions, and this section is general workplace conflict management guidance rather than a statement about any organisation’s specific legal obligations. Where a situation looks serious, organisations should consult their applicable WHS regulator or get appropriate professional advice.
it does tends to make people more reluctant to raise issues early, not less.
Informal resolution is usually appropriate for miscommunication, differences in working style, minor interpersonal disagreements, unclear responsibilities, and early-stage tension that hasn’t yet caused real damage. A formal process becomes more appropriate when there are serious allegations, a repeated pattern of inappropriate behaviour, allegations of bullying or harassment, genuine safety concerns, significant breaches of workplace policy, or a dispute that simply can’t be resolved internally despite a genuine attempt.
Awards and enterprise agreements generally contain their own dispute resolution procedures, and the Fair Work Commission recommends checking the applicable procedure first, noting that resolving a dispute within the workplace can save the time, cost and stress associated with a more formal process. As with the psychosocial safety section above, this is general guidance rather than a legal conclusion about any particular situation.
Ignoring the problem and hoping it disappears. It rarely does. Address it early, even briefly, rather than waiting for it to escalate on its own.
Taking sides before hearing both perspectives. This is one of the fastest ways to lose the trust of whoever feels overlooked, even when your instinct turns out to be right. Hear everyone out first.
Focusing on personalities instead of behaviour. “They’re just difficult” doesn’t give you anywhere to go. Naming the specific behaviour and its impact does.
Trying to resolve serious issues too informally. A quiet word in the corridor isn’t the right response to a genuine allegation of harassment or a serious safety concern. Match the process to the severity of the issue.
Having difficult conversations over email. Tone gets lost, context gets lost, and email creates a paper trail that can make people more defensive rather than less. These conversations belong face to face or, at minimum, over a call.
Forcing an immediate solution. Sometimes people need a short break to cool off, or a second conversation once they’ve had time to think, rather than a resolution demanded on the spot.
Failing to follow up. A conversation that ends on a positive note isn’t automatically a resolved conflict. Check back in.
Two customer service employees keep clashing because each believes the other is responsible for a particular category of customer enquiries that falls in a grey area between their roles. It started as an occasional mix-up and turned into visible frustration, with each person quietly reassigning the awkward enquiries to the other rather than dealing with them.
The underlying cause isn’t a personality clash. It’s a genuine gap in role clarity that nobody had noticed until it started causing friction. The manager speaks to each employee separately first, hears both sides, and realises they’re both operating on a reasonable but different understanding of where the boundary sits. She brings them together, keeps the conversation focused on the process gap rather than who’s been slacking off, and the three of them work out a clear rule for which enquiries go to which person, along with a simple escalation step for anything that still falls in between. Two weeks later, she checks in with both of them separately to see whether the new arrangement is actually holding up in practice, and adjusts one small detail based on what they tell her.
Shifting from reactive conflict resolution to genuine prevention means paying attention to clear roles and responsibilities, explicit communication expectations, regular feedback rather than only annual reviews, manager capability, psychological safety, clear behavioural standards, effective complaint and reporting processes, and early intervention when tension first appears. Safe Work Australia specifically recommends addressing inappropriate or harmful behaviours early, rather than waiting for them to escalate into something more serious.
Organisations can’t eliminate every disagreement, and trying to would probably do more harm than good. The realistic goal is building teams that can discuss differences constructively before they turn into something bigger.
This usually comes down to a fairly consistent set of capabilities worth developing across a team: active listening, comfort with difficult conversations, emotional intelligence, assertiveness, basic negotiation skills, giving useful feedback, and conflict resolution itself. Preferred Training Network’s conflict resolution skills training, dealing with difficult people training and communication skills training are built around exactly these capabilities, though the priority here is understanding what actually helps, not turning this guide into a course catalogue.
What are the most effective ways to resolve conflict at work?
The most effective approach involves addressing the issue early, separating the person from the problem, listening to understand each perspective, identifying the real underlying cause, focusing on interests rather than fixed positions, finding shared ground, and agreeing on specific actions with a genuine follow-up rather than assuming the conversation alone has fixed things.
What are the 5 steps of conflict resolution?
A useful five-step framework is Recognise, Understand, Discuss, Resolve, Review. You recognise the disagreement early, understand each person’s perspective and the underlying cause, discuss it respectfully and factually, resolve it with specific agreed actions, and review afterwards to check the resolution is actually holding.
What causes conflict in the workplace?
Workplace conflict usually comes from a combination of factors rather than one single cause, most commonly unclear communication, unclear roles and responsibilities, different working styles, competing priorities or limited resources, organisational change, and, in some cases, genuinely difficult behaviour.
How should a manager resolve conflict between employees?
Managers should speak with everyone involved, understand each perspective before drawing conclusions, identify the real underlying issue, facilitate a constructive conversation where appropriate, agree on specific actions, and follow up afterwards, all while staying genuinely fair rather than taking sides early.
What communication skills are important for conflict resolution?
Active listening, asking open questions, emotional self-awareness, assertive communication, giving and receiving feedback well, and staying focused on facts rather than assumptions all make conflict resolution considerably easier and less likely to escalate.
When should workplace conflict be escalated?
Conflict generally warrants escalation to a formal process when it involves serious allegations, a repeated pattern of inappropriate behaviour, bullying or harassment concerns, genuine safety issues, or a significant policy breach, particularly where a genuine attempt at informal resolution hasn’t worked.
Can workplace conflict be a psychosocial hazard?
Yes, in certain circumstances. Safe Work Australia recognises conflict and poor workplace relationships as a potential psychosocial hazard, particularly where it is severe, prolonged or frequent. This doesn’t mean every disagreement qualifies. It’s the pattern and severity that matter, and organisations with genuine concerns should refer to Safe Work Australia’s guidance or seek advice from their applicable WHS regulator.
Conflict itself isn’t really the problem. What matters is whether people can recognise disagreements early, communicate through them honestly, and land on solutions that actually hold up once everyone’s back at their desk.
Organisations that build this capability across their teams tend to see the flow-on effects well beyond the individual disagreements: steadier working relationships, stronger collaboration, and management that people trust to handle things fairly when something does go wrong. If your organisation wants to build these capabilities more deliberately, Preferred Training Network’s conflict resolution skills training is a practical place to start.
