How to understand the causes of a workplace conflict

To understand a workplace conflict, start with a specific incident: what the disagreement concerns, what outcome each person needs and which constraints make agreement difficult. “Our personalities are incompatible” gives you little to act on. A description of the situation and a few clarifying questions are more useful than guessing someone’s intentions.

Describe an incident without labelling the person

Write down what happened and which piece of work it concerns. Separate the observation from the explanation you gave it. “My colleague proposed postponing the meeting” is an observation. “They are deliberately disrupting my project” is an interpretation that may not yet have supporting evidence.

Consider a fictional example. A coordinator is preparing a client meeting for Thursday, while an analyst asks to move it to the following week. The coordinator has confirmed the date with participants; the analyst is waiting for information to discuss. Their disagreement about the calendar may also involve different expectations of the meeting.

Begin with one situation. A list of every irritating action over the past year will make it harder to understand the question you want to examine now. If a recurring pattern matters, record several specific incidents separately.

Clarify what the disagreement concerns

The University of Minnesota guide to conflict sources distinguishes task, process, status and relationship issues. A single incident can involve more than one source. Use these as directions for questions, not as a diagnosis of someone’s personality.

In our example, first check the task. The coordinator wants to collect clients’ questions, while the analyst assumes the meeting must present completed findings. If so, the disagreement concerns more than timing. If they expect the same outcome, examine the preparation process and how the decision will be made.

Clarify authority as well: who can change the date, and whose agreement is needed? If the discussion has turned into personal attacks, that behaviour needs separate attention. Correcting a calendar misunderstanding does not undo what happened between the participants.

Separate a position, an interest and a constraint

A position is a proposed option: “We need to postpone.” An interest may be “I do not want to mislead the clients.” A constraint is a condition to account for: “The data will arrive on Monday.” Ask the person about these distinctions rather than filling them in on their behalf.

The answers might reveal another option: collect questions on Thursday and discuss findings later. This is one possible solution to the fictional example. Sometimes requirements are genuinely incompatible and a person with the relevant authority must make a decision.

Test your explanations with questions

Ask a question whose answer could change your interpretation. “What information do you need before the meeting?” leaves room for clarification. “Why do you always hold things up?” already contains an accusation and a generalisation.

Summarise what you heard: “Have I understood correctly that the problem is the promise of finished findings, rather than the date itself?” Give the person a chance to correct you. If you remember an agreement differently, check an available note or document instead of treating your memory as the only evidence.

Record what remains unknown. One unanswered message proves neither hostility nor agreement. The questions for examining alternative explanations can help you check your initial account.

Choose a next step that fits the issue

If the task was understood differently, clarify its outcome and completion criteria. If a resource or decision-making authority is missing, take that question to someone who can address it. When the participants need a conversation, use the guide to preparing a discussion about a disagreement.

Threats, humiliation and pressure should not be reduced to an ordinary misunderstanding that both people must settle through compromise. Appropriate support and a route for raising the concern matter. The guide to constructive criticism and personal attacks helps distinguish feedback about work from a personal attack.

Finish with a short record: what is known, where accounts differ, what needs checking and who will take the next step. For recurring situations, follow up by examining how to prevent working disagreements from escalating.