How to prepare a conversation about a disagreement

To discuss a disagreement with a colleague, choose one issue, prepare observations and consider a possible next action. During the conversation, check your understanding of the other person’s account, then record an agreement and how you will review it. Preparation does not guarantee agreement, but it helps you stay with the question that needs attention.

Choose an issue and a suitable format

State what needs a decision now. “We do not work well together” is broad. “Three agreed slides disappeared from the shared presentation before the meeting; we need to understand how changes are approved” provides a specific issue. We will use this fictional example throughout.

Agree on a time and explain the topic without accusation: “I would like to discuss the presentation changes and agree on how we approve the final version. When would be convenient?” Avoid starting a sensitive discussion in front of uninvolved people or when the person clearly cannot give it attention.

A direct conversation is not suitable for every situation. If there are threats, humiliation, pressure or concerns about retaliation, first identify an appropriate source of support. The CIPD guide distinguishes serious complaints that need a formal process from matters suited to informal discussion.

Prepare observations and questions

Before meeting, note the material you want to discuss, what changed, why it matters for the work and what you do not yet know. Check an available version history if there is one. Do not collect details about a colleague’s private life to explain a work incident.

• Observation: the version used before the meeting lacked three slides
• Effect on the task: an example needed for the discussion was missing
• Question: when and on what basis was the selection changed?
• Desired next step: agree on a process for final changes

This is a preparation note, not a verdict about blame. A client request you did not know about may have changed the task. If separating the event from your interpretation is difficult, start with the guide to understanding the causes of a specific conflict.

Start with an observation and hear the response

Briefly describe the incident and its significance for the work. For example: “Before the meeting, I saw a version without three slides I was relying on for my explanation. I would like to understand what changed after we agreed on it.” Then ask a question and let the person finish their answer.

Summarise what matters: “Have I understood correctly that the client asked for a shorter presentation and there was no time to discuss the cuts?” Checking your understanding does not require immediate agreement with everything said. It establishes which situation you are discussing.

If the discussion moves towards “you always” or “you never”, return to the chosen incident. If tension becomes too high, propose a pause with a clear continuation: when and how you will return to the issue. A pause should not become an indefinite disappearance from the conversation.

Agree on an action you can review

Discuss available options. For the presentation, these might include a message about substantial changes, a clearly marked final version or a person responsible for decisions before the meeting. Clarify what each participant can actually do.

“Let us respect each other” does not explain how the next presentation will be prepared. A more concrete illustrative agreement is: “After approval, record changes to the slide selection in the shared document and notify the other presenter; discuss urgent exceptions separately.”

Record the action, the responsible person and a review point. If a decision is still missing, note the unresolved question and who could help clarify it. The guide to working agreements covers making expectations explicit.

Review the result and consider support if needed

After the next shared task, check whether the agreement was used and whether it addresses the original difficulty. Reaching agreement and following through are different observations. If the approach proves awkward, discuss a specific adjustment.

When participants are stuck, neutral support may help. Acas describes workplace mediation as a voluntary process in which an impartial mediator helps participants find an acceptable agreement. This is a distinct role; a manager or HR professional is not automatically acting as a mediator.

A serious complaint needs an appropriate route for consideration. Someone should not be expected to accept a compromise or private conversation simply to create an appearance of reconciliation. For ordinary recurring disagreements, follow the conversation by checking the conditions that help stop working problems from escalating.