Résolution de Conflits: Chemins multiples

Conflict Resolution

Branching Scenarios

start

Carla believes that Marcos misses deadlines and delivers work with improvable quality.

Marcos believes that Carla engages in micromanaging and does not respect his autonomy, intruding too much in his tasks and how he solves problems.

You are responsible for a team of8 people, and you encounter a conflict between two members: Carla and Marcos. They hold similar positions in the internal hierarchy, but one's work is negatively affecting the other's.

Your goal is manage the conflict in a way that maintains team cohesion and improves the relationship between both colleagues. Otherwise, it could affect the performance of the rest of the team. To achieve this, all parties must feel heard and valued in a fair and impartial manner.

continue

Decision 1: Address the first meeting

The conflict has been souring the team environment for weeks. There are veiled reproaches in meetings, emails copied to half the world, and deliveries that get stuck due to misunderstandings. You are asked to intervene as the department head. Before making a move, you need to decide how to take the first step:

Decision A: Joint meeting

You call both people to a brief meeting with a simple goal: listen to each other and agree on next steps. Shortly after starting, they interrupt each other when speaking, correct each other publicly, and tension rises. No one is lying, but each tells a different story. If you don’t set the rules, the meeting will turn into an exchange of reproaches.

Decision B: Individual meetings

You choose to listen first in private. In 20–30 minutes, each person reveals nuances that wouldn't surface in a group: frustration over "excessive" controls, fear of failing in front of a large client, doubts about roles and expectations.

Decision A1: Communication Rules

You pause the meeting and propose a simple framework: short turns, concrete examples, and zero interruptions. The room lowers its revolutions: there are no more shouts, but mistrust remains. With the terrain calmer, you must choose which approach to prioritize to create real progress:

Decision A2: Blame directly

You point to one of the parties as primarily responsible for the problem. The reaction is immediate: the other party shuts down, justifies each decision, and the other side takes the opportunity to pass judgment. It's necessary to close the meeting in the least damaging way possible and decide whether to introduce an improvement plan with follow-up or insist on the uncompromising demand, accepting the relational cost.

Decision B1: Find common ground

Share non-sensitive findings and highlight commonalities: both want to deliver on time and avoid staying late; both fear disappointing the client. There is willingness to collaborate, but expectations are misaligned. You need to decide whether to turn these coincidences into concrete operational agreements or to first strengthen the bond with a light team activity.

Decision B2: Confidentiality and subsequent joint meeting

After the interviews, organize a meeting joint with clear rules. The conversation is correct but stays superficial: no one wants to be "the bad guy" of the story. To unblock, you can address the real issue with honesty, or anchor the talk in shared goals to reduce defenses and open the way.

Constructive resolution: Concrete facts

Decision and steps

Risks to monitor

Signs of success

Situation

Bureaucratize the flow and add friction. Mitigate with a review of the process every 14 days to eliminate unnecessary steps and keep only what adds value.

Less last-minute urgencies reduce late changes, deliveries go "on the first try", and the volume of messages outside working hours decreases.

Focus the conversationon facts:

• Define what "done" means.
• Put each task on a board with responsible and date.
• Another person reviews it before delivery.

The conflict has blurred into opinionsand blame. Missing data to ground the problem in observable facts: delays, rework, and confusing handoffs.

Situation

Decisionand steps

Risks to watch

Signs of success

Partial resolution: Emotions

Risks to monitor

Signs of success

Situation

Decision and steps

Stay in the therapeutic realm and avoid touching processes. Compensate with an operational session the following week to translate what was discussed into work agreements.

Lower reactivity, increase confidence, ask for help earlier, and reduce passive-aggressive tone in messages.

The relationship is tense due to perceptions of control, distrust, or lack of recognition.Emotional contaminates the operational.

• Name emotions without dramatizing.
• Feedback without attacking the person
• Rules: no interruptions, no public corrections, agreed channel.
• Biweekly check-in of 10 minutes.

Situation

Decisionand steps

Risksto watch

Signs of success

Partial resolution: Follow-up plan

Risks to monitor

Signals of success

Situation

Decision andsteps

Perceived as a punishment.Balance demands with support: pairing, training, and transparent criteria. If no progress, a proportional and announced escalation plan.

Metrics improve week by week, rework decreases, and collateral noise reduces in the rest of the team.

After a shock, there is fragile commitment and doubts about whether a real change will occur.The team needs a framework with goals and clear deadlines.

• Define a 30-day improvement plan with objective metrics.
• Mentorship and weekly reviews.
• Write down expectations and criteria.

Situation

Decisionand steps

Risksto watch

Signs of success

Negative resolution: Blame maintained

Decision andsteps

Risks to monitor

Signs of success

Situation

Drag effect on team morale.Stop rumors with clear communication: what happened, what changes, and why. Reconstruction plan with the rest of the team.

Operational stability in the short term, reduction of cross conflicts and a climate of progressive recovery.

The label of “guilty” is installed and blocks collaboration. The wear already affects delivery and the climate.

• Activate a formal process with HR
• external mediation
• temporary redistribution of responsibilities
• change of project
• Protect the client and the operation in the short term.

Situation

Decisionand steps

Risksto watch

Signs of success

Constructive resolution: Clear agreements

Decision and steps

Risks to monitor

Signals of success

Situation

Agreements that are forgotten. Provide visibility on the board, automatic reminders, and corrections without drama during the weekly meeting.

More predictability, fewer surprises, less rework, and shared sense of control.

There is willingness to collaborate, but expectations do not match (roles, deadlines, quality levels).

• Turn coincidences into a work pact: roles, interfaces, channels, response times, and “definition of done” per phase.
• Weekly ritual of review and cross-verification.

Situation

Decisionand steps

Risksto watch

Signs of success

Partial resolution: Team building

Decision andsteps

Risks to monitor

Signs of success

Situation

Stay in the good mood and do not touch processes. Schedule an operational session within the same week to establish concrete changes.

Improves the tone, spontaneous help gestures reappear, and minor clashes decrease.

Accumulated tension prevents open conversation. Rehumanizing the bond is necessary to work on solutions.

• Brief and cooperative dynamic with purpose.
• Translate the good climate into 2-3 micro-agreements operational:
• Response times.
• “No ping” outside working hours unless urgent.

Situation

Decisionand steps

Risksto watch

Signs of success

Constructive resolution: Encourage real conversation

Decision andsteps

Risks to monitor

Signs of success

Situation

End the debate.Set a time limit to decide and run a 2-week trial; if successful, continue; if not, adjust.

Less interpretative discussions, more transparency, faster decisions, and focus on the result.

The discussion avoids the core: autonomy vs. control and quality standards. Ambiguity enlarges the conflict.

• Name the problem directly and agree on collaboration rules by phases: draft, review, delivery.
• Control points lightly and temporary rotation of roles for cross empathy.

Situation

Decisionand steps

Risksto watch

Signs of success

Constructive resolution: Common goals

Decision andsteps

Risks to monitor

Signs of success

Situation

Distant goals that demotivate. Break down into short milestones with visible victories and continuous learning.

Better coordination between areas, pride in delivery, and reduction of territorial conflicts.

The relationship has become "me vs. you". Lacking a shared North that prioritizes.

• Refocus on team objectives.
• Launch a small joint project with clear deliverables and biweekly demo.
• Celebrate milestones to reinforce behavior.

Situation

Decisionand steps

Risksto watch

Signs of success

Decision branching map

Decision 1

Joint meetingDecision A

Individual meetingsDecision B

Confidentiality +Decision B2

Find matchesDecision B1

Direct blameDecision A2

Communication rulesDecision A1

Follow-up planResolution A2a

Force real conversation Resolution B2a

Clear agreements Resolution B1a

Concrete facts Resolution A1a

Team building Resolution B1b

Maintained blame Resolution A2b

Emotions Resolution A1b

Shared goals Resolution B2b

Constructive resolution

Partialresolution

Negative resolution