A conflict is rarely the actual problem.
Often, it’s the moment when the problem finally becomes audible.
Before that, there might have been nothing more than an annoyed glance during a meeting. A task that was left undone. A statement that was meant one way but came across another. Eventually, this turns into tension. Then an argument. Then the desire to get the matter off the table as quickly as possible.
This is exactly where the mistake lies.
Conflicts are uncomfortable because they disrupt things. At the same time, they reveal where an organization needs to take a closer look. They expose where expectations diverge, where roles are unclear, or where frustration has been bottled up for too long.
Müller-Thurau sums it up with the statement: “Only through disagreement can great things emerge” (Müller-Thurau 2024: 131). The quote attributed to Joubert also fits here: “The goal of a conflict or a dispute should not be victory, but progress.”
This idea is central to change processes. Change rarely goes smoothly. Resistance is part of the process. Without constructively resolved disputes, further development can be blocked (see Bieler 2021: 1).
Why Conflicts Are Important
At first glance, conflicts seem to disrupt collaboration. In organizations, however, they often reveal issues that have been lingering for some time.
Perhaps a decision was never clearly explained. Perhaps a new structure is clashing with old power dynamics. Perhaps two departments with different expectations are working on the same task but aren’t communicating effectively.
If such tensions aren’t addressed, they continue to grow. A professional conflict can then quickly turn into personal frustration. Ambiguity turns into mistrust.
Conflict management is therefore more than just damage control. It is a tool for restoring the ability to work effectively.
This ability is especially needed during times of transformation. Change shifts responsibilities, expectations, and habits. This creates friction. The question isn’t whether conflicts will arise. The question is how an organization deals with them.
The Dangerous Reflex
The first reflex in conflicts is often: Who is right?
This question rarely leads anywhere. It narrows the conflict because it forces people into fixed positions. Then people start defending themselves, explaining, and judging. The view of the actual context is lost.
Hilmer explains that understanding a conflict requires perspective and context (see Hilmer 2021: 325). This is precisely what is often missing when organizations rush to assign blame.
A conflict discussion therefore needs structure—not as a rigid ritual, but rather as a guide to prevent participants from falling back into old patterns.
Müller-Thurau describes three phases for this process, which should be followed in sequence (see Müller-Thurau 2024: 140–141).
First, the conflict is described—without judgment and without assigning blame. The goal is to make clear what happened.
This is followed by establishing the context. In this phase, information is gathered. The parties involved clarify which perspectives and background factors are relevant to the conflict.
Only then is a decision made on what to do. The focus then shifts to alternative solutions and next steps. A good conflict manager prepares possible alternatives before the discussion even begins (see Müller-Thurau 2024: 140–141).
This sequence sounds simple. In practice, it requires discipline. Many discussions fail because decisions are made before the conflict has even been understood.
Describe first, then evaluate
The beginning of a conflict discussion is delicate.
If the initial description is already an accusation, the conversation becomes tense. The other side goes on the defensive. Clarification turns into a counterattack.
A helpful description, therefore, sticks closely to observable behavior. What happened? When did it happen? What effect did it have on the work?
This comes across as objective. That’s exactly where its power lies.
A judgment like “You’re holding up the project” quickly leads to justifications. A description like “The decision was made in the meeting, but implementation has been pending for two weeks” creates a different starting point.
This sparks a conversation about the process. The person isn’t immediately put on the spot.
This is particularly important for organizations undergoing transformation. In such contexts, tensions are often linked to uncertainty. Those who judge too quickly reinforce defensiveness. Those who describe things clearly create space for clarification.
Context Is the Turning Point
A conflict is rarely explained by a single moment.
It has a history. It has underlying conditions. It involves differing perceptions.
That is why the second phase of a conflict discussion takes time. This is where we clarify what the conflict is really about. What information is missing? What expectations were left unspoken? What interests are at play in the background?
This work on context changes our perspective.
Sometimes it becomes clear that no one acted maliciously. The structure was unclear. Or communication was patchy. Or a goal was understood differently.
That doesn’t excuse every behavior. But it makes the conflict manageable.
Especially in organizations, progress often arises precisely at this point: when personal attributions give way to a shared understanding of the situation.
Decision-Making Requires Preparation
The decision follows the description and context.
What needs to be done now? What agreement will help? What boundaries are needed? Which alternative is viable?
Müller-Thurau emphasizes that a good negotiator and conflict manager considers possible alternative solutions even before the discussion begins (see Müller-Thurau 2024: 140–141).
This is important because conflict discussions can be emotionally charged. Those who wait until the moment is upon them to look for solutions quickly end up with hasty compromises or falling back on old patterns.
Good preparation creates room to maneuver. It helps ensure that you don’t just react to the loudest position. It makes it easier to keep progress in sight.
The benchmark is not that everyone is happy in the end. The benchmark is whether the organization can function better again.
Conflict coaching empowers the individual
Conflict coaching can be an important tool. Hilmer describes it as working with one element of the system—that is, with a person. It focuses on personal conflict management and how one deals with stressful situations, emotions, and the challenges encountered in a conflict (see Hilmer 2021: 327–328).
That may sound like a small thing, but it can make a big difference.
After all, conflicts aren’t resolved solely through conversation. They are also played out internally. People react to pressure, hurt feelings, or a loss of control. They avoid conversations, escalate them, or carry things around with them for too long.
Conflict coaching can help identify these patterns. It can be used for prevention and to support the resolution of an existing conflict. Hilmer also mentions its use when conflicts escalate (see Hilmer 2021: 327–328).
This is relevant for organizations because conflict competence should not be developed only when a crisis arises. It must be built up in advance.
Conflict culture is not just a slogan
An organization cannot simply talk its way out of conflicts.
It needs a conflict culture.
Bieler outlines questions that are important for developing one: What is a conflict? How does it unfold? What does constructive conflict management look like? What characteristics does a constructive conflict culture require? (see Bieler 2021: 4).
These questions sound fundamental. That is precisely why they are important.
Without a shared understanding, conflict management remains haphazard. One leader addresses tensions early on. Another waits until the situation escalates. One team seeks clarification. Another works around the conflict.
A sustainable conflict culture provides guidance. It clarifies when a conflict should be addressed and how discussions should be conducted.
This is particularly valuable for transformation. Change creates friction. A mature conflict culture helps determine whether friction leads to learning or to deadlock.
Language Makes Conflicts Manageable
Approaches based on nonviolent communication can help people better articulate conflict-ridden situations. Tietze et al. explain that conflicts must be addressed and controversies brought to light so that they can be worked through (see Tietze et al. 2023: 47).
This is a key point.
As long as a conflict is merely sensed, it remains difficult to grasp. It is language alone that makes it manageable.
Effective language separates observation from judgment. It makes the impact visible. It articulates needs without immediately attacking the other side.
This sounds like precision work. In conflicts, precision work is often the difference between resolution and escalation.
Those who can better articulate conflicts give the organization a chance to respond sooner.
Our Impact
Our contribution lies in taking conflicts seriously as part of change.
During transformations, we help organizations avoid viewing friction as a disruption to the plan. It can be an indication that something in the system needs closer examination.
We support leaders and teams in structuring conflict discussions more clearly, building conflict competence, and developing a sustainable conflict culture.
This isn’t about harmony. It’s about progress.
A resolved conflict can reveal where roles need to be clarified. It can uncover expectations that have remained unspoken. It can help restore effective collaboration.
That’s where conflict management becomes transformation work.
What Remains
Resolving conflicts does not mean eliminating tension as quickly as possible.
It means addressing the tension in a way that allows for clarification.
Organizations benefit from conflict management when conflicts are discussed in a structured manner before frustration undermines collaboration. This requires effective facilitation, conflict coaching, and a culture that does not reflexively reject dissent.
The bottom line remains: A conflict is not automatically harmful. It can be a signal.
The question is whether an organization will act on that signal.
Sources
- Bieler, K. (2021): Developing (and Further Developing) a Culture of Conflict. Sustainable Change in the Mindset Toward Conflict in Companies. Springer Gabler
- Hilmer, H. (2021): Conflicts in Projects. Explanatory Models, Methods, and Solutions for Better Conflict Management Skills. Springer Gabler
- Müller-Thurau, C. P. (2024): First-Time Manager. Tips from an HR Professional. 2nd ed., Haufe
- Tietze, A.; Treiber, J.; Weber, T. M.; Schweizer-Strobel, P. (2023): Municipal Conflict Facilitation. A Practical Guide for Municipal Administrations, Civil Society Institutions, and Facilitators. Springer
