How can I understand what is really causing conflict in my team?

The disagreement you can see may not be the problem you need to solve

Two colleagues repeatedly disagree about how to deliver a project. One complains that the other keeps interfering in decisions that should be theirs. The other believes they are protecting the quality of the work and preventing unnecessary risks. Their manager arranges a meeting to improve communication. Both are encouraged to listen, share information and work more collaboratively. For a few days the atmosphere improves, but another decision brings the disagreement back.

The manager concludes that the colleagues are struggling to work together. Perhaps their personalities are incompatible, or one needs to be more accommodating. But consider another possibility. One believes that responsibility for delivery includes the authority to make decisions independently. The other believes their specialist expertise gives them a legitimate right to influence those decisions. Neither expectation has been made explicit.

The disagreement may have started with decision authority and competing interests. Repeated conversations about communication have left that uncertainty untouched, while frustration is beginning to damage the relationship. The manager may be trying to solve a communication problem that is only part of what is happening.

In conflict, we notice behaviour first: challenges to decisions, defensiveness, withdrawal, sharp comments or complaints. These are important signals, but they tell us relatively little about the circumstances producing them. Before reaching for a familiar intervention, I would want to know what each person believes is happening, what matters to them and what, if anything, the organisation has made unnecessarily difficult.

Is the conflict itself necessarily a problem?

Disagreement is not always evidence that a team is functioning badly. Two engineers may dispute the reliability of a design, or a finance director may challenge a proposal that looks commercially attractive but carries significant risk. These exchanges can improve decisions when people are able to examine the differences without making them personal.

In an October 2026 Harvard Business Review IdeaCast conversation, organisational psychologist Adam Grant discusses three established forms of workplace conflict: task conflict, concerning ideas and decisions; process conflict, concerning how work is organised; and relationship conflict, concerning interpersonal friction and negative feelings (Harvard Business Review, 2026). His practical concern is how teams can challenge ideas and arrangements without disagreement turning into hostility.

That does not make task or process conflict automatically beneficial. Poorly managed debate can consume time, reinforce divisions or damage trust. Nor does apparent harmony tell us whether people feel able to challenge an assumption. I would be cautious about treating every disagreement as a problem to eliminate, just as I would be cautious about treating every lively argument as productive. Grant helps us ask what kind of conflict is taking place? A different framework helps us investigate why it is happening.

What are the six sources of workplace conflict?

Christopher Moore developed the Circle of Conflict to help mediators diagnose disputes. His original model identifies five sources: relationships, data, interests, structure and values (Moore, 1996). Gary Furlong subsequently adapted the model to include a sixth category, external factors and moods (Furlong, 2005). This gives leaders somewhere else to look when the obvious explanation is that two people simply do not get along.

The categories are not six separate boxes into which every conflict fits. Unclear authority might generate competing interests; repeated arguments about those interests can eventually damage trust. The model is useful precisely because it encourages us to consider more than one explanation.

Relationships: When the past influences the present

Previous disagreements, damaged trust and assumptions about another person’s intentions can shape how people interpret current events. A request for information from a trusted colleague may feel helpful, while the same request from someone with whom we have experienced difficulties may feel like interference. Over time, people may respond more to what they expect from one another than to what is happening now.

For leaders, the challenge is to understand the history without getting trapped in competing accounts of every past incident. Which assumptions have developed, and what needs to happen differently for people to work together constructively?

External pressures and moods: When circumstances intensify conflict

Workload, fatigue, uncertainty and pressures outside the immediate disagreement can influence people’s reactions. Colleagues who normally cooperate may become defensive when facing demanding deadlines or organisational change. These pressures may amplify a disagreement without being its original cause.

Leaders can consider whether demands, priorities or timing can be adjusted while still holding people accountable for their conduct. It is also worth noticing how our own stress and impatience may contribute to the situation.

Structure: When the organisation creates conflict

People may wish to cooperate but work within arrangements that make it difficult. Unclear decision rights, overlapping responsibilities, competing objectives and limited resources can create recurring friction. A production team measured on throughput and a quality team measured on compliance may disagree repeatedly while both are fulfilling legitimate responsibilities.

A conversation about relationships may help, but the problem can return if the underlying arrangements remain unchanged. Leaders may need to clarify authority, reconcile expectations or change how work is organised. Do the people involved actually have the authority and resources to resolve the disagreement themselves?

Interests: Understanding what people are trying to protect

People often defend positions without explaining the interests beneath them. A manager who insists on approving every project decision may be concerned about risk and accountability, while a colleague seeking independence may want autonomy and the ability to deliver results without delay.

Exploring why an outcome matters can reveal options that remain hidden when people argue over fixed positions. Decision thresholds or agreed consultation points might protect both interests. Some needs will genuinely compete, but understanding them provides a better basis for negotiation and judgement.

Data: When information and interpretation differ

Disagreements can arise from missing information, disputed facts or different interpretations of the same evidence. One colleague believes a deadline was agreed; another understood it to be provisional. Establishing what is known, assumed and uncertain may clarify the problem.

More information does not always create agreement; however, People can accept the same facts but differ about their significance or what should happen next. Leaders need to distinguish disagreement about evidence from disagreement about priorities, interests or judgement.

Values: When principles are in tension

People may disagree because they place different importance on fairness, transparency, confidentiality, responsibility or professional standards. These conflicts can be difficult because compromise may feel like abandoning an important principle.

Leaders can explore the values involved and seek shared ground without assuming agreement is always possible. Some differences permit practical accommodation, while ethical, legal or safety obligations may require a clear boundary or decision.

Which sources offer the best opportunity for resolution?

Furlong’s treatment of the Circle of Conflict draws attention to an important practical issue: some sources are more readily addressed through problem-solving than others. Established beliefs, damaged relationships and outside pressures may not be easy to change directly. Clarifying disputed information, exploring interests and altering structural arrangements may provide more immediate opportunities (Furlong, 2005).

This is not an instruction to ignore values or relationships. If someone is being mistreated, appropriate action cannot wait for a redesign of decision rights. But imagine two colleagues whose trust has deteriorated after months of arguing about who has authority. Asking them to trust one another may be difficult to act on. Agreeing who decides what, when consultation is expected and how concerns are raised may give them a more dependable starting point.

Sometimes a practical change makes a strained relationship easier to repair. At other times, the relationship itself needs direct attention. The value of diagnosis is in identifying where useful action is possible, rather than assuming the most emotionally visible part of the conflict must always be the first thing to tackle.

Why can the wrong intervention make conflict worse?

Return to the project colleagues. Their manager assumes poor information sharing is the problem and introduces more reporting, documentation and meetings. Greater transparency seems sensible. But if the deeper disagreement concerns autonomy and decision authority, the new arrangements could leave one person feeling more controlled and reinforce the other’s belief that they must monitor every important choice.

Clarifying authority and agreeing when consultation is necessary might do more than adding another meeting. Information would still be shared, but in support of a working agreement rather than as a substitute for one. The mistake is not that communication is irrelevant. It is that the chosen intervention does not adequately address what keeps the disagreement alive.

Leaders can also become attached to their first explanation. Once we decide that someone is resistant or difficult, later behaviour may appear to confirm the judgement. I would rather offer a tentative interpretation: “I wonder whether some of this concerns who has authority over particular decisions. Does that fit your experience, or is there something I am missing?” That leaves room to discover something unexpected.

Could my own leadership be contributing to the conflict?

A manager tells two colleagues they need to resolve their differences. Both agree, but neither can change the targets, reporting arrangements or decision rules that keep bringing them into conflict. What exactly has the manager delegated?

The responsibility to work constructively, certainly. But perhaps also the responsibility to cope with an organisational problem that only the manager has the authority to address. I think this distinction deserves particular attention. Encouraging colleagues to resolve differences independently can develop maturity and ownership. Asking them to resolve a structural contradiction they cannot change may simply leave them unsupported.

Leaders can contribute to these conditions without intending to. We may delegate accountability without sufficient authority, give different people incompatible expectations, tolerate overlapping responsibilities or avoid a decision that would settle a recurring dispute. We may ask teams to collaborate while evaluating them against targets that reward competing outcomes.

There is a personal dimension too. We might listen more readily to someone whose style resembles our own, or interpret challenges to our decisions as resistance. Once that interpretation settles, we may start treating one colleague as the problem without examining how our own expectations or reactions are shaping the situation.

This does not mean leaders should accept responsibility for every disagreement. People remain accountable for their conduct, and harmful behaviour may require a formal response. But before asking colleagues to sort things out for themselves, I would ask whether they have the clarity, authority and resources needed to do so. If not, part of the next move belongs to the leader.

How can I diagnose a conflict before intervening?

I would use the Circle of Conflict as an aid to inquiry, not a scoring instrument or a label to attach to individuals. People may have incomplete insight into their own motivations, and their accounts may differ. Four perspectives can help you decide what to ask next.

Separate conversations may help when trust is low or emotions are running high, provided they support a constructive next step rather than turning the leader into a permanent go-between. Distinguish observable events from interpretations, acknowledge unresolved facts and share any diagnosis tentatively. Sometimes you will discover that a conversation about behaviour is needed. Sometimes the better response is an overdue decision about priorities, authority or resources.

The seriousness of the situation matters. Allegations involving threats, harassment, discrimination or serious misconduct require appropriate procedures and safeguards. A routine facilitated discussion should not substitute for those responsibilities.

Five questions to help you understand a conflict in your team

Think about a disagreement affecting your team, especially one that has continued despite attempts to address it. Use these questions to test your interpretation before choosing what to do next.

1. What is actually happening? Describe observed events and behaviour separately from assumptions about motives.
2. Which sources might be involved? Use the six sources to identify more than one plausible explanation and how they might interact.
3. What matters to the people involved? What are they trying to achieve, protect or avoid? Have you heard their interests or mainly their positions?
4. How might my leadership be contributing? Are unclear expectations, competing priorities, avoided decisions or organisational arrangements sustaining the tension?
5. What do I still need to understand before acting? Which questions would test your assumptions, and what might need to change beyond individual behaviour?

You do not need a perfect diagnosis before taking necessary action. Where there is no immediate risk, however, being clearer about what you do not yet know may prevent you from imposing another solution that leaves the underlying difficulty untouched.

Understanding conflict may change what you need to do

Conflict can be uncomfortable for leaders, especially when others expect us to make it disappear. The temptation is to find a solution quickly, restore cooperation and move on.

Yet some disagreements persist because people are working within conditions that make conflict difficult to avoid. Others reflect genuinely different interests or values. Some become personal after months of frustration. A useful diagnosis will not necessarily produce an easy answer: it may reveal that a decision is overdue, that expectations are incompatible or that our own leadership has contributed to the situation. It may also reveal a legitimate disagreement that people need to work through rather than suppress.

Perhaps the question worth asking is not simply “How can I get these people to stop disagreeing?”

It is: What is making this disagreement difficult, and what am I in a position to change?

Recommended reading

• How do I prepare for a difficult feedback conversation? Explore assumptions and evidence before a challenging conversation.
• How can I improve collaboration at work? Examine the working arrangements and relationships behind effective cooperation.
• How can I manage conflict between strong personalities at work? A practical set of ideas and actions for dealing with style difference.

• Want some help understanding and addressing conflict in your team?

  For You: Leadership Clinic

  Bring a specific conflict you are struggling to understand or resolve. I prepare beforehand, then we spend 90 focused minutes exploring what may be driving it, challenging assumptions and identifying practical next steps. One challenge, one session, no ongoing commitment.

  Explore the Leadership Clinic

  For You: Executive Coaching

  Develop your confidence in navigating difficult relationships and recurring disagreements. Work with me over time to recognise conflict patterns, examine your own leadership contribution and make better decisions about when and how to intervene.

  Explore Executive Coaching

  For Your Organisation: Leadership, Teams & Facilitation

  When conflict keeps returning, the causes may sit in how teams work together. I help organisations explore underlying tensions, clarify responsibilities, strengthen constructive disagreement and develop leaders who can address conflict effectively.

  Discuss Working Together

  Choose the level of support that fits the conflict or leadership challenge you are facing.

References

Furlong, G.T. (2005) The conflict resolution toolbox: Models and maps for analyzing, diagnosing, and resolving conflict. Mississauga, ON: John Wiley & Sons Canada.

Harvard Business Review (2026) ‘Why great teams don’t need to like each other’, HBR IdeaCast, 13 October. Available at: https://hbr.org/podcast/2026/10/why-great-teams-dont-need-to-like-each-other (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Moore, C.W. (1996) The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.