It's important to establish ground rules/rules of engagement during the kick off of the team, for all members to discuss how the group wants to handle the conflict. For example one of those rules might be: When disagreement presents, we will pause, seek clarity give all applicable individuals the floor to share their point of view to identify where the point of disagreement is, and seek to understand. If all parties cannot resolve the conflict it's okay to agree to disagree. The point is not to avoid disagreement because without it, you run the risk of Groupthink, which is not beneficial for anyone.

To handle team conflicts effectively, focus on open dialogue and active listening to understand all perspectives. Refocus on shared goals and use mediation or consensus-building techniques to resolve issues. Encouraging compromise and establishing clear conflict resolution processes helps maintain team alignment.

When facing team conflicts during a collaborative task, I view it as an opportunity to understand different perspectives. Conflicts, while challenging, are a chance to explore diverse viewpoints that may have been overlooked. I encourage open dialogue where each team member can express their opinions and concerns. By doing so, we gain a deeper understanding of the underlying issues, which often leads to finding a solution that improves the current state and positions us better for the future. Rather than seeing conflict as a roadblock, I see it as a stepping stone to innovative solutions and stronger team alignment.

Before conflicts arise, set clear ground rules for how your team will handle disagreements. 1. Encourage everyone to speak respectfully and avoid personal attacks. 2. Promote the practice of listening to understand, not just to respond. 3. Keep discussions centered on the problem at hand rather than personal differences. 4. Encourage team members to bring solutions, not just problems, to discussions. Practice Facilitative Leadership to guide discussions and ensure all voices are heard. Focus on collective goal-setting and problem-solving rather than individual positions. Ultimately, hold people accountable and model the behaviors you want to see.

It helps when the leader acknowledges that there is conflict or disagreement without being judgmental about who’s right or wrong. Ask if someone from each side could explain their position. Try to find common ground somewhere as a starting point to build upon. Encourage give and take by asking “can you accept this or can you work with that?” Hopefully that will open up problem solving discussion and the team can begin to build consensus.

I found conflicts are easier to resolve when the trust, respect and communications is obvious among those participating in a collaborative task. Seeking to understand rather than judge each person’s perspective. Finally, when everyone is committed to completing the task, conflicts are easier to resolve.

Conflicts in a team can be beneficial, often sparking innovation and healthy competition, as long as they stay within acceptable limits. I view conflict not as inherently negative but as a chance to drive creativity. However, it's essential to monitor the team's ability to manage disagreements effectively, aiming not just to resolve the issue but to foster ongoing growth. I emphasize shared goals, even small common areas, to help the team refocus. Active listening and clear communication are crucial to understanding different perspectives. Unless the conflict escalates to a point requiring immediate action, I believe the leader should guide the process, allowing the team to learn and resolve the issue independently.

I always try and call the team together before it escalates. Before we even get into the business of the task I would ask the team openly what's on their mind and any issues they want to raise. In my experience a lot of the blockages can be down to personalities, context outside of the work issue etc, so it's really important to understand where everyone is starting from. Then I would get into the points mentioned below regarding checking the brief/ the scope of work etc and understanding what the agreed tramlines and RASCI is for everyone involved. Then it's about a good well facilitated conversation to identify the misalignments and come to an agreed contract by the end.

It's a tough road, but I'd say that listening is the key skill here. What does each side want? Then... what does each side need, in order to be a better contributor to your most sacred mission. Sounds weird, but this distinction is key in terms of establishing a congruence and an alignment that makes sense to all parties.