Managing Conflict as Team Leader: Practical Case Studies and Conflict Resolution Tools

In this episode, Simon Goode explores common challenges faced by team leaders in managing workplace conflict through three detailed case studies. He analyzes each situation using practical conflict resolution tools, including the five types of conflict and various conflict modes such as collaboration, compromise, and assertiveness. Listeners are offered actionable strategies for navigating value clashes, mediating team disputes, and handling resistance from senior team members.

TIMESTAMPS:

00:00 Introduction to Conflict Skills Podcast

06:34 Adapting management styles

08:59 Discussing team process adjustments

12:19 Handling staff resistance professionally

14:48 Struggles with team collaboration

18:03 Conflicts between Jordan and Sam

21:34 Handling Work Conflicts Thoughtfully

24:39 Using the GROW coaching model

28:00 Choosing compromise as a conflict solution

30:51 Workplace conflict and presenteeism

34:48 Handling team communication issues

38:01 Discussing conflict resolution styles

Transcript

Copy

SPEAKER_00 0:25

Well, hello and welcome back to the Conflict Skills Podcast. I'm your host, professional mediator, Simon Good. I set up this podcast to provide free resources and tools for dealing with conflict. So if that sounds like the kind of thing that's useful to you, please consider pressing subscribe. In the episode today, I'm going to go through a few different conflict resolution case studies. I'll explain some of the main analytical tools that I use as a workplace mediator coming in and some of the different options that the poor team leaders could consider given the context and given the different situations that they're facing. Now I do workplace mediations predominantly, and a lot of the time when I'm called in to deal with some external, I'm called in externally to deal with some conflict, the issues are often around a team leader, like team leader roles, hierarchy, delegations, communication. And it is one of the most challenging spots to be in, I think, the team leader. There's two things that they always tell me. First, they often talk about this sense of being the meat in the sandwich. It's almost like impossible to keep the operation, the organizations happy, to keep the upper executive leadership happy at the same time as keeping their staff happy. And so they're managing this top-down decision-making, maybe changes that are implemented that affect their team. And they care about the people that are involved, but they've only got so much ability to influence. And actually, that's the second thing that people often talk about is almost a sense of what sounds to me like burnout. A lot of these team leaders, they really do care about the people on their team. They actually do want to support them as best they can. And so they care when negative changes come that impact them, for example, extra tasks, extra documentation, extra bureaucracy gets added, but they might not have many options for actually pushing back against some of those changes. So that unfortunate combination of a sense of responsibility combined with not much ability to influence it tends to be that factor that does put people at risk of burnout. And I think team leaders in particular are prone to that, at least in my experience. I don't know, maybe you've got a different set of challenges in your situation there locally. So there's three different case studies that I'm going to be exploring. With each of them, I'll read through it first and do a little bit of annotation and figure out what are the main bits that jump out at me at least. And then I've got a few different slides on the screen that I'm going to refer to just in terms of some different tools that we could use for dealing with conflict. These are all things that I talk about in my essential foundations for conflict resolution training, but I'll do my best to explain everything if these are ideas that are new or concepts that are new to you, so don't worry, it hopefully won't be too overwhelming. So the first situation involves Alex, and we've got a case study of resistance to the new team leader. This is what's going on. When Alex was promoted to team leader of the customer support unit, several long-serving staff members struggled to accept the change. They had worked under the previous manager for years and preferred the old informal style. Alex introduced clearer weekly targets and a more structured handover process. Within days, two experienced agents began openly questioning the new rules in team meetings, rolling their eyes when Alex spoke, and continuing to follow the old informal methods. Other team members noticed the quiet defiance and became unsure whose directions to follow. The atmosphere grew tense, with conversations stopping when Alex entered the room and small tasks being completed more slowly than before. Oh gosh, it sounds so challenging, doesn't it? Even reading this with the relatively high-level summary that we're looking at. My heart goes out to poor Alex. And I don't know what would necessarily be the best way forward here. It's the kind of situation where it's difficult even to know what's going on, let alone what you should consider doing in terms of responding. I guess at the least we don't want to rush in and overreact. I suppose this is the kind of situation where you do want to tread a little bit carefully. One of the things that Alex might regret is throwing around ultimatums or throwing around threats, especially when he doesn't necessarily have the authority to back that up, in my experience, that really does undermine your own authority when you say this is your last chance, and then nothing changes, and then what do you know the person doesn't get the consequence that you had threatened them with? So what is the conflict about? I might just underline that phrase, the old informal style. This is what the previous staff members had talked about, and then a lot of the structures around the targets and around the handover process, I think that's probably flowing from that style, like what's going on here. Now, as a mediator, when I hear phrases like it's their leadership style or their leadership approach, what I often hear is that we're dealing with a difference in values. This could be things like micromanagement. Someone feels like the boss is looking over their shoulder, the team leader won't let them go, and the team leader's thinking, look, it's my job to be across what's going on here. I'm responsible for it at the end of the day, after all. And so with those two approaches of you should be hands-off, no, no, I need to keep my finger on the pulse, neither of those perspectives are right and wrong. When we're dealing with this value kind of conflict, what often doesn't work is to say, you need to stop doing that, you're obviously incorrect, this is ridiculous, obviously you're micromanaging. What tends to work better is normalizing both perspectives. To you, probably this is what makes sense given that this is your focus, the bits of the team that you're responsible for. On our end, this is how we're dealing with things. In the previous team that you were a part of, this is how things used to run. There was a lot of autonomy given to individual staff members, and it sounds like the old manager or the old team leader was reasonably relaxed in terms of reporting. The challenge is that we've got these changes that have happened within the larger organization, so my approach tends to be a little bit different. My approach is a little bit like this. So it's not so much my approach versus you, it's much more about given this and this, how can we figure this out? What's going to work moving forward? If you're in Alex's position, there might be some situations where what's needed here is just quite an assertive approach. Maybe there is enough at stake or it's spreading to affect the other members of the team, and he decides or she decides, well, no, this is the way that it needs to be moving forward in other situations, and I think here my natural inclination would be to be a little bit more collaborative. Well, what's going to work here? I might actually scroll down and pull up a slide that I've got looking at the five types of conflict. This is obviously something that I've talked about in a number of different podcast episodes previously, but I find this to be an incredibly helpful tool when it comes to dealing with workplace conflict. The idea here is that we've got these five different factors that can drive conflict: data, interest, value, structure, and relationship. So if we think about this issue of the old manager's informal style, and now we've got a little bit of a difference in perspective, I suppose that is an area where Alex could choose how to engage with this. He might just deal with the facts. I've noticed that two or three of the team have yet to enter their data. Could you please make sure that that's done by the end of the day? So these are the expectations, this is what's required. We're kind of going back and saying this is the bottom line in terms of what you've been asked to do or what the instructions are or the minimum outcomes that I'm looking at, or something similar. Alex could change that. He might give them a little bit more time, he might offer them some clarity in terms of the reasons for the change. But if we're dealing with the conflict just in terms of the data, we're really drilling down to the stuff about the facts, what's actually happened here. Or he could deal with this in terms of the interest. If you'll at least do this thing that I've asked you to do, then I'll do this for you. If you, then I. He could just do that as a simple kind of trading, like compromise. Or maybe there's a situation here where, like, it's enough at stake where it makes sense to sit down and have some meetings with those members of the team and saying to them, guys, look, this is really important. It's not something that's flexible. There's not something that I can agree to in terms of the old system. But I would like to hear from the two of you about what is it regarding the new system that you're finding particularly challenging. Maybe there are some tweaks or changes that are needed in terms of either that process or broadly speaking, how this work is done within the team. For example, he might collaborate and say with them, okay, fair enough, like you're out in the field, you don't have internet access or you don't have a laptop in front of you. Let's maybe change the structure so that you take the old informal notes on the day, but then at the end of the week, we schedule some time for sitting down with the rest of the team, and that's where you'll do your data entry. So it's kind of a win-win. I'm not expecting you to do it out in the field, but at least it means that I'm going to get that data or whatever the actual behavior is that I was looking for from them. Or we could talk about the values, like this might seem a bit like I'm micromanaging, or this might seem a bit like you're not giving and you're not getting any freedom or something. I get where you're coming from, these are my reasons. What's your perspective on this? What's going to work for you moving forward? We could just deal with the structure. That might be about reminding them about the tasks that are due, or changing the way that you're reporting on that, like calling them every morning and just seeing if there's any curly questions that they've got or any challenging bits of the data entry before they get going because you want to give them some support. But that also means that you're getting a daily update as to where things are up to, so maybe we could change the structure, or we could deal with the conflict in terms of the relationship. Maybe talking to the two staff and saying, look guys, this doesn't seem like you. Previously, when we've worked together and we're all at the same level, I really enjoyed the fact that we were so collaborative. We looked after each other's backs. I wonder what's happened now is something different. Are you feeling like maybe I've done something wrong that's upset you? Maybe I've overstepped the mark in terms of some of the decisions that I've made or communication that's happened. Kind of like, can you help me understand where you're coming from here? Now, this is the kind of situation where we might need to prepare to be dumped on. If Alex is the new team leader and he has overstepped the mark, or she has overstepped the mark, well it's possible then that they're going to get a bit of a mouthful in return, like you shouldn't have done this, or this was really ridiculous, or I'm still upset about this other thing that happened. So in terms of that relationship layer, we could also think about things like letting people have events, offering an apology, clarifying your intentions for something that happened. All of these could be things that help shift the conversation forward. So Alex could choose, do you just want to deal with this in terms of the data, clarify the expectations, talk about the facts? Do you want to deal with this in terms of interest? What can you threaten them with? What can you reward them with? What can they give you back in return? What would a compromise look like? Or he could think about values. This might seem over the top to you, but this is the reason why I'm taking this approach. Obviously, you've got a different perspective and a different way of working that works for you. Let's organise a time to talk it through. Or maybe it's changing the structure or something in terms of the relationship, like offering an apology or something similar. There's a number of different ways that Alex could go dealing with that particular issue, isn't there? So if we continue, within days, two experienced agents began openly questioning the new rules in team meetings. Rolling their eyes when Alex spoke and continuing to follow the old informal methods. If this is the kind of situation where Alex feels that he needs to be assertive, then I suppose he might consider what are the specific behaviours that are they that they're doing? Like when he says openly questioning the new rules, what was it about the phrasing that they used that was over the top? Or how could you describe the eye roll in a way that they understand what you're talking about? Because if Alex comes to them and says, Look, you guys have just got such a negative attitude at the moment, I'm so sick of it, well it just gives them room for defensiveness. Easy for you to say, mate, you're not the one that's blah blah blah blah blah. Whereas if he's more specific about what they're actually doing, like if you've got concerns about instructions that I'm giving other staff, could you please come and talk to me about that privately? So if he decides to be assertive, focusing on the specific behaviors will be much more helpful than generic black and white labels that we paint either of the people that we're dealing with, especially if they are long-standing staff. I think there's a real risk of burning your bridges if you come at these kind of issues over the top initially, and then I think a lot of the time you actually lose the respect of the team that you're working with. Let's look at the second situation though. Here we've got a case study where the team leader is involved, but they are literally the meat in the sandwich. Here they're mediating a team dispute. Okay, so here's the scenario. In her first month as team leader of a marketing group, Priya was pulled into a heated disagreement between two content writers, Jordan and Sam. Jordan accused Sam of taking credit for shared ideas and client presentations. Sam claimed Jordan was overly controlling and dismissed any feedback. The argument spilled into the open plan office with raised voices and sharp comments that left the rest of the team uncomfortable. Priya, still establishing her authority, found both writers looking to her for support while continuing to criticize each other. Work on a key campaign slowed as the two refused to collaborate and other staff began avoiding joint projects that involved either of them. Oh goodness, this is the kind of situation where you can just imagine the tension, the way that the culture and the way that the vibe in the office must be affected, or if it's not office, then it's you know the online chat sessions or something similar. So let's go through and figure out what are some of the key elements that jump out, at least to me, and you might have a think about well, where would you begin if you were in this kind of a situation as the team leader? So it's a first month, very, very early on in the in the sort of team lifestyle that you might think about. We've got a marketing group, Priya was pulled into a heated disagreement between two content writers. So I've just kind of circled that word pulled. I wonder how Priya did become involved, like how that played out. In my experience, when you're in the accidental mediator role, one of the things that's quite important is impartiality. Like Priya probably wants Sam and Jordan to know that she's not taking sides. At the same time, Priya probably wants to give the people the sense that she gets where they're coming from. So for me, if Sam had grabbed Priya, or if Jordan had grabbed Priya, it might be quite important for Priya to establish her impartiality early on, to say, well, I'd like to hear both of your perspectives here. I suppose there's a few different ways of thinking about this. It sounds like you've got some crossed wires. Maybe you could fill me in on what's going on from your perspective, Sam. And then Jordan, I'd love to hear your take on things as well. So immediately I'm establishing this sense of perceived impartiality. I'm not rushing in to take Sam to take sides with Sam because we play soccer or something on the weekend. Like I'm doing my best to figure this out in a relatively neutral kind of way. For me personally, I prefer new impartial rather than neutral because I often do influence the situation even when I'm literally called in as a mediator. So I don't think neutral is actually very true, but I do try and remain impartial. So Priya was pulled in. There might be some things that Priya should manage, especially if Priya has one has a better relationship with one or the other of them. Jordan accused Sam of taking credit for shared ideas in client presentations. So there again, we've got this label, you've been taking credit. This is the way that we're perceiving your behaviour. But there's a behavior underneath it. Like, what did Sam do? Did Sam phrase things in a way that implied that Sam did the majority of the work? Did Sam meet with the client and spend some time schmoozing before Jordan arrived? And so Jordan felt like that was a little bit of a betrayal. Like in what way did Sam take credit? Now, if I was Priya, I might begin by that. Jordan, when you say that you felt like Sam was hogging the spotlight or whatever, what did he do? What was it that he did did that led to you feeling that way? Now obviously that's a very complicated question and there's a lot of room for reflection in that. Like, how come that's the way that you're perceiving it? Why is that the view that you've reached? How else would somebody who's a bit removed from the situation view Sam's behavior? Would it be exactly the same as you, or is there a little bit of room for subjective perspective going on here? So probably there's a bit of drilling down that could be done here. And then that says, Sam claimed Jordan was overly controlling. Again, I'd be curious about what are they doing that's led you to feel that way and dismissed any feedback. Is that about the way that the feedback was done? Is that about the content? Is that about hierarchy? And Sam feels like because Jordan's on the same level as him, that Jordan should bugger off and let him do his own work? Like, what's actually going on here? It says the argument spilled into the open plan office with raised voices and sharp comments. For me, as a team leader, as a manager, I often jump in reasonably early when this kind of stuff is happening publicly. It depends on the rest of the team and what's the context, of course, but it's probably not going to be a very effective thing for the rest of the team to have all of this drama unfolding. But I also think that having an audience, having this gathering of onlookers inherently charges up the conversation that we're dealing with with more pressure. You know, we're worried about how other people perceive us, our reputation looking silly. And you might be surprised at the lengths that people will go to to avoid being humiliated. Like we really don't like it. So if our goal was to help Sam and Jordan to have this conversation in a productive way, doing it somewhere privately would be better. And I might step in and say, Can I ask the two of you to please go over there to have this conversation? Like full stop, very clearly, this is what I'm asking you to do. It's difficult for the rest of us to work. Could the two of you please go and grab one of the meeting rooms? Just full stop. This is what you've done and why it's a problem, if you want to talk about that, and then specific requests. Could you please go over there, do this, take this offline, whatever the language is that works for you in terms of your style? So the the argument erupted into the open plan office. Well, it's not surprising, is it, that the rest of the team was left uncomfortable. And arguably, if you feel that you do have a duty of care to provide a safe working environment for the rest of the team, there might not be much flexibility there. This might be the kind of situation where Priya says, the two of you need to stop now, or you need to lower your volume, or you need to go into this other section of the building. Priya, still establishing her authority, found both riders looking to her for support while continuing to criticize each other. Work on a key campaign slowed as the two confused to collab refused to collaborate, and other staff began avoiding joint projects that involved either of them. Goodness me. So you can very easily imagine how it's having a negative effect on the overall productivity of the rest of the people, can't you? So this is the kind of situation where we might have cascading levels of goals that we reflect on. First, it might be about Priya. If Priya is under the pump and really stretched and she's about to go into a different meeting, then she might just take an approach to deal with it that's quite quick. If there's senior executive leaders in the building today for an inter office meeting or something, she might really be assertive at but bidding like cutting this off before it gets out of hand. Because she doesn't want this to reflect negatively on the rest of the team. If half the team are off sick and there's only a couple of other people here today, maybe it's not such an urgent thing to shut down that public display of the conflict that was going on. She would also, though, need to think about well, what's the broader goal that she has? What is her relationship with the rest of the team going to look like? As I said with the previous scenario, you often don't want to rush in and react, especially that knee-jerk kind of reaction. They're often the kinds of things that we really do regret later on with the power of hindsight. So if I was working with Priya myself as a coaching client, or if I was in Priya's shoes, I might just pause and think, where does this fit in amongst all of the other priorities that I'm dealing with at the moment? What's my goal for my relationship with the two that are involved, with Jordan and Sam? Do I expect to really work together as a tightly knit team moving forward? Then I might spend more time dealing with the relationship layers of the conflict. If these two people don't really have much to do with each other, broadly speaking, they can be left on their own, then it might not be the end of the world that there's a bit of tension sitting there between the two of them. So you'd need to think about your goal for the relationship and within the team, I would put in that category as well. And then there might be other people that we consider in terms of goals too, those other team members who are left feeling uncomfortable because of all of this argybargy that's going on. Now it's an interesting phrasing, isn't it? They refuse to collaborate. For me, when I hear that word collaborate, I often think about conflict modes as described by Thomas and Kilman. They talked about these five broad approaches that we can use for dealing with conflict. So we have collaborate, that's one of them. That's where we actually do see if we can get to a win-win option. Maybe Jordan and Sam could reach an agreement moving forward that Sam will be responsible for project A, Jordan will be responsible for project B, and there'll be a clearer delineation between them in terms of structure. Or maybe Jordan Sam, I should say, offers some kind of compensation to Jordan. You're right, I dig did hog the limelight there next time round. How about you go first, or how about you do that section of the end of project handover process or something else? There might actually be solutions that they could reach here. So the fact that the two of them refuse to collaborate, I wonder there. I think Priya might be able to still influence this, and it's often using coaching. I like the grow model of coaching myself, where we talk about the goal. Like you don't need to be mates, you don't need to be friends with each other, but you do need to find a way to establish a productive working relationship. So what would that look like from each of your perspectives? What do you need from the other person and what would you be prepared to do in return? So we talk about the goal first, then we talk about reality. When you say that he was hogging all of the attention, what did he do? Then we go through options. What do you think might work here? What could we tweak within the team? How could the process be changed? What kind of support could we get from other people around us? All of these are different options. And if I'm in prayer's position and I'm coaching, what I want to do is to facilitate brainstorming. I want them to develop multiple ways of dealing with this problem. And then finally, we've got the W, which is about the way forward. What will you do? Given all of that that we've just talked through, given all of those ideas that you've put on the table, where are you going to start? What's next? When will you do that? When can I expect an update? All of those kind of elements. For me, really drilling down into that grow model of coaching is incredibly helpful if we want to facilitate more collaboration. So that's the first of these conflict modes, but not every conflict that we're dealing with warrants that approach. Obviously, it says win-win, so it sounds ideal, right? But sometimes being collaborative backfires. This might be the kind of situation where there isn't a win-win that's possible, like it's just not realistic. Or maybe you're dealing with someone and you try to collaborate, and what you're getting in return is effectively someone that just takes, takes, take. It's not a two-way street. So I don't know, even though it says win-win, it's not necessarily true that that's always the best way to go. In some situations, especially if there's not much at stake and it's not the end of the world, sometimes the conflict could just be avoided. I wonder even how Jordan would look back on this situation of Sam taking credit. There might be a bit of her that thinks maybe I did overreact, maybe I did rush in, and maybe there's a bit of ego or something else that's going on that gets in the way of her admitting it. Sometimes we just take an accommodating approach. We just say yes. If I was in Prior's position as the team leader, I might say to Jordan, what are you concerned about if you just let this go? Is it the issue itself and the fact that he got a bonus or something? Is it a precedent that you're worried about creating that Sam feels like he can walk all over the top of you? Help me understand what's going on here. Fill me in. So I'm kind of saying if you did take the accommodating approach, what's the problem? Or I could talk about competing. Where is the bottom line for you? So given all of that that you've talked to me about, Jordan, how could you communicate that to Sam in a way that he's able to hear? So I might not say, Jordan, you should compromise. I might say, fair enough. He was wrong, he shouldn't have done that. How are you gonna tell him? What are you gonna do about it? Like I don't necessarily want to come in as the rescuer, so tell me about what your next steps are going to be. And that's where that way forward often is a really nice way of finishing a coaching conversation. The final obvious conflict mode that we've got as an option here though is compromise. If there's no win-win that's possible, or you don't have time, you're under the pump, and there's a bit of a rush, maybe just splitting the difference makes sense. Prier again could talk to them both about guys, what would a middle ground look like here? Guys, what would a compromise look like if there's something that we can put in place? It's not perfect, neither of you are gonna be 100% happy with it, but at least it's something that we can agree to and then we can move forward. If we aim for that compromise middle ground, often the language that works better is is that something that you could agree to? Is that something that you you can accept? So I'm not saying are you happy with this? And they're gonna say, well, of course I'm not bloody happy with it. Would you be happy with it if you were in this situation? Of course not. It's more about look, even though you don't think they should have necessarily done the thing that they could, they they did, what's a middle ground here in terms of you know restoring balance or getting things back on track moving forward? Obviously, I've got very Australian Ocker language that I use when I'm dealing with a lot of these different things. So you might have different phrasing that you use. But potentially it would be the same options in terms of the approach itself. Okay, let's have a look at this third case study. Here we've got challenged by a senior team member, and it's Marcus. Marcus, newly appointed team leader of a small engineering group, faced immediate pushback from the most experienced engineer, Eleanor. She had expected the role herself and made little effort to hide her disappointment. Oh gosh, they're always challenging, aren't they, when two people applied for the same job and one of them's left upset. When Marcus outlined a revised project timeline, Eleanor publicly disagreed in the team meeting, stating the plan was unrealistic and that she would continue with the previous approach. Interesting. She later questioned his decisions in front of junior staff and delayed sharing critical technical information. The rest of the team grew uncertain about whose directions to follow, and progress on the current project began to stall as communication between Marcus and Eleanor remains strained and formal. It's challenging, isn't it, when we move back to that like the bare minimum, like just the formalities, you're just willing to respond to the specific question that the person asked. Like obviously, there I don't think there's much in terms of goodwill. And it's difficult because somebody might say that they're doing enough, but what they're really doing is the bare minimum. If absenteeism is what happens as a result of workplace conflict when people just call in sick, presenteism is what people do as a result of workplace conflict when they come in, but they just kind of do just enough not to get in trouble. They make mistakes and don't fix them or do shoddy work cutting corners or something, maybe creating extra work for it could be, I think, probably Marcus in this situation, but there's a little bit of almost like silent resistance that goes on before the conflict becomes something that we can observe. Often it's overt at the point where it's voiced and they talk about it. So I wonder about Eleanor, and she expected to have that job, and she made little effort to hide her disappointment. That might be the kind of situation where Marcus and Eleanor have a slightly different perspective about whether that was okay or not. Did she do something that was over the top? Was it reasonable to expect that she would keep it private from the rest of the team members or not? Like there would be a number of factors that goes into what we expect, but each person is going to have a slightly different subjective set of expectations that they reach, of course. So Marcus has outlined the revised Marcus has outlined the revised project timeline, and Ellen has publicly disagreed, saying that the plan was unrealistic and that she would continue with the previous approach. So this is where Marcus might decide how assertive he needs to be with this situation. This could be an a moment where enough is at stake and it makes sense just to be quite assertive. If he does decide to do that, I like that what ask check approach again. What did Eleanor do? So she disagreed in the team meeting. But what did she do that's wrong? Like, are you not allowed to disagree? Well, I asked to move on to the next topic, but you insisted on continuing to talk about it. Like if Marcus can be a little bit specific about which behaviors he wants Eleanor to change, it's more likely that she will. Whereas if he says, you're not respecting me or you're being really inappropriate or unprofessional, well, we're all going to have slightly different ideas about where's the line there, what that threshold actually looks like. I think though, Eleanor saying she's going to continue with the old approach, this would be an area where Marcus might decide, does he need to do something here? Because he is responsible for it. If it's his job to make these decisions, it might be quite a significant issue that he's being second guessed here. So if we're in Marcus's position, I suppose we could think about those same five either types of conflict. We could think about the personality types of the people that we're dealing with or something. But let's think about those same five conflict modes here. What would each of those look like if Marcus decided to go down each of these different paths? Well, the first option that he's got obviously is avoiding the conflict. This obviously doesn't get too much long-term resolution if there's an issue that's been there for some long period of time, but maybe this isn't the time and place to deal with it. So Marcus might decide that either right now's not the right moment, the rest of the team are here and I don't want them to overhear the argument. Or maybe it's something to do with him, like he's feeling really pissed off and he doesn't think he would be able to deal with it in a calm and composed kind of way. Maybe that avoid makes sense sometimes. So for how long or which parts of it are we going to avoid? That might help us to not feel like we're just putting our head in the sand. This isn't the time and place to deal with it. I'll put a reminder in my calendar for tomorrow morning. That's going to be a better time to raise it. He could just decide to take that competing approach. I like that what ask check model of dealing with assertiveness. We talk about what the person has done, why it's a problem. Then we ask them to change this specifically. Next time I'm giving these instructions, could you please, I don't know, let me finish what I'm saying before you jump in. Or next time I'm giving instructions to other staff, could you please talk to me about any concerns that you've got privately instead of undermining the instructions that I've just given in front of the rest of the team? Like what specifically did they do and what would he like her to do differently? And then the final step in that model is something of a check. Is that okay with you? How does that sit with you? Is that going to create any issues on your end? Now there's probably a bit of him that's genuinely wanting to make sure it's not creating any issues, but I want to make sure that the other person doesn't walk away with an excuse in the back of their head as to why they don't need to follow what I've asked them to do. Maybe Marcus could compromise here. Maybe he could split the difference, at least with these kind of projects, like when we're talking about the ones that are a million dollar plus plus, could you not second guess me in front of the rest of the team? Or while we're still in these early stages of the project, could you do this differently? There might be some parts of the conflict at least that Marcus could just accommodate, just go with the flow. Maybe it's not the end of the world. He feels disrespected, he feels like it's not right. That's probably a bit of a sign that a boundary has been crossed. But in the long run, this might not be the end of the world. So for him, a little bit of embarrassment or a little bit of ego or something in the short term is going to be a little bit turbulent because of that. But he should know that that's just about the initial reactions. His long-term goals might involve not necessarily dealing with this so directly earlier on. And then maybe Marcus has some options or ideas in terms of a win-win. He could even take that approach when he comes and talks to Um, what was the other person's name? Eleanor about it. Like Marcus might say, look, the last thing I want is for you to feel like all of these decisions are being made top-down and I'm leaving you out of the loop. You've got a lot of experience, and I really value your input. What would work in terms of delegation or in terms of these case discussions or in terms of these project meetings so that you don't feel like you're being railroaded and you don't feel like your experience is being undermined? But we can give the team a unified front when it comes to a single message or a single approach that are coming from yourself in the leading hand job and me now moving into the team leader role. So I'm kind of saying, how can we manage this moving forward? What would you need to see from me that's different? How could we change the structure? Is there something else that I can do to offer you? Make your life a little bit easier if you would do this for me. There's some benefit in the collaborating itself. It's possible that Marcus and Eleanor will actually be able to come up with some kind of a long-term solution, and that's great. Happy days. But even if they can't, a lot of the time this gives Eleanor the sense that she's not being railroaded, she's not being completely dismissed. Her experience, her points of view and perspective are things that are quite important and valuable. And I don't know. How does that all sit with you thinking about the way that I approach these kind of conflicts with case studies? Have you got a slightly different perspective than me? Maybe there's different starting points that you would consider. I know that I tend to be a little bit of a people pleaser, so one of the things that I would definitely want is I want to sleep at night, I don't want massive stress, so I'd probably begin dealing with these kinds of an issue, chipping away at it slowly, whereas other people I know would rush in and this has to be different here, we might as well tip over the board and let's just start again. Would you approach those kind of issues that I talked about in terms of the types of conflict? Data, interest, value, structure, and relationship? Or maybe hearing me describe some of those conflict modes, competing or directing, collaborating, compromise, avoid, and accommodate might have helped even for you, sorting through. Well, maybe there's some things that I can just be a little bit softer on. I can just let those ones go through to the keeper. I can just say yes to what the other person's asking me for. But where are the situations where I do want to take that competing approach and hold the line? If it's been useful, I'd be incredibly grateful if you would be willing to press like or press whatever the different buttons are on the platforms that you're watching or listening. And let me know, is there something else that I can tweak in terms of these case study approaches? Are there different contexts that you would like me to address? Maybe I could pick three case studies looking at the kind of work that you do. Or if you've got a specific situation that you're dealing with, please feel free to send that in as well. And I'd be happy to talk about that in one of these workplace conflict case studies too. But otherwise, let's leave it there. Thank you very much for listening. I hope that it has been useful, and hopefully see you again in a future episode of the Conflict Skills Podcast. Bye for now.