Common conflict management methods: move from opposing positions to a shared goal
Before asking two colleagues to meet halfway, find out what their preferred solutions protect. Is it a date already promised, time needed for a check, limited staff availability, or a different understanding of the result? A shared goal is an outcome both parties can recognise and assess. Simply agreeing to stop arguing does not tell them how to finish the work. Clarifying facts, developing options together, making a limited compromise, pausing for information and involving a facilitator can all serve a purpose. Choose according to what is missing in this disagreement. Avoid categorising yourself or a colleague as a fixed “conflict type”. A useful conversation can end with an agreement, or with a clear plan to obtain the information needed before deciding.
Separate an event from a judgement about a person
“You always change the requirements” mixes an assessment with a potentially actionable event. Narrow it to this occasion: which requirement changed, when did it change, and which confirmed commitment does that affect? If each team has a different version, verify the current record before negotiating concessions around uncertain facts.
Likewise, “We must launch today” is a position, not a complete explanation. Harvard’s Program on Negotiation describes separating people from problems and examining interests beneath positions. That distinction gives you a direction for questions. Rephrasing a disagreement alone does not establish agreement.
Discover the conditions each side needs to preserve
Consider an illustrative scenario: one colleague wants a demonstration on Friday; another says the complete materials will only be ready Monday. The first may already have invited participants, or may simply prefer Friday. The second may need essential checking time, or may still be waiting for an unconfirmed input. Ask what is already fixed before assuming either demand is non-negotiable.
Useful questions include: “What commitment sits behind that date?” and “Which part could change, and which part would need someone else’s approval?” Then summarise what you heard and invite correction. An accurate summary does not require agreement. It establishes that both people are discussing the same constraint.
Atlassian’s escalation guidance similarly asks parties to explain each other’s options accurately. Avoid following a summary immediately with another demand disguised as understanding. Give the other person space to correct the description before evaluating alternatives.
Make the shared goal useful for choosing
“Make the project successful” is too broad to compare Friday with Monday. A more useful proposed result might be: “Participants receive a clearly scoped demonstration, using checked material, under an arrangement we have confirmed with them.” Ask both sides whether that statement protects their important conditions. Do not announce agreement on their behalf.
Distinguish fixed commitments, preferences and unknowns. A confirmed invitation date, an unverified attendance estimate and an adjustable presentation scope should not all be labelled immovable requirements. The shared goal should help evaluate options, rather than become a reason for one person to absorb unlimited extra work.
Match the method to the missing piece
If the disagreement concerns versions or definitions, clarify the facts first. If the conditions are understood but the approach differs, develop options together. Consider whether scope, sequence or delivery stages can change. For each possibility, name what it satisfies, what it gives up, who would do the work and who can approve the commitment.
In the demonstration example, showing only checked material initially might be an option. It remains an option only if the audience’s needs and the organisation’s requirements allow it. A limited compromise is reasonable when both sides explicitly accept the trade-offs. Selecting a date halfway between two proposals does not magically create time for a necessary check.
When a decision depends on missing information, pause with a specific question, an owner and a return time. A pause with those details differs from leaving the disagreement unresolved indefinitely.
Be clear about a third party’s role
If the discussion repeatedly circles around the same statements, consider inviting an appropriate person to facilitate it. Columbia University’s Ombuds Office distinguishes exploring options and facilitating informal conversations from making management decisions. That provides a useful role distinction; it does not mean every workplace has the same office, authority or confidentiality arrangements.
Check whether you need help conducting the discussion or someone with authority to decide. Ordinary disagreement procedures should also not minimise conduct that belongs in an established organisational reporting process. The article’s methods are for everyday work coordination, not a requirement to negotiate every kind of concern privately.
Turn agreement into a reviewable arrangement
Record the choice, responsibilities, timing, unresolved conditions and review point. If the agreement is a smaller initial demonstration, specify what it includes, who checks readiness and when the next stage will be considered. A trial should not quietly become a permanent commitment.
Ask each participant to confirm their next action. The useful outcome is more than “no objections”: everyone understands what the decision changes in their work and how any remaining uncertainty will be handled.