Ask any leader what drains their week and you will hear stories of tension between colleagues. Conflict feels personal, but its impact is organisational. In the United States alone, unresolved conflict costs more than $350 billion each year in lost productivity, absenteeism, turnover, and legal costs (Stephan Lendi, 2025). Employees spend an average of 2.8 hours every week managing conflict,  the equivalent of $359 billion in paid hours diverted from meaningful work (CPP Global, reported by Peaceful Leaders Academy, 2025).

The human toll is just as stark. Workplace incivility leads nearly half of employees to cut effort, 38 percent to reduce quality, and a quarter to displace frustration onto customers (Porath & Pearson, 2013). Conflict erodes not only efficiency but also the fabric of trust and collaboration that teams rely on.

And yet, the presence of conflict is not the issue. Conflict is less like a virus to be eradicated and more like weather to be navigated. Strong personalities bring energy, insight, and conviction. The challenge is how leaders hold those moments so they sharpen decisions instead of scarring relationships.

This guide draws on six lenses from behavioural science to help leaders manage conflict between strong personalities. Each offers practical ways to redirect heat into progress. Together, they shift the leader’s stance from controlling clashes to stewarding the conditions where conflict becomes fuel for stronger work.

1 – Psychological safety

When strong personalities clash, the risk is not just the argument; it is the silence that follows. People withdraw, the conflict narrows to a duel, and the team loses its diversity of thought. Amy Edmondson’s (1999) work demonstrates that high-performing teams are not immune to conflict. They are free of fear. Members know they can speak up, disagree, or admit mistakes without humiliation or penalty.

Safety here is not a matter of comfort or politeness. It is the confidence that the group will hold you when you take a risk. Without it, conflict drains oxygen from the room. With it, disagreement becomes a spark for better decisions and stronger learning.

Vignette: In a review meeting, two specialists escalate quickly. “This is exactly why your method never works.” “At least I don’t waste everyone’s time with pointless detail.” The room freezes. The leader interrupts: “Pause. This matters. I hear the strength of commitment in both of you. But this cannot be just your debate. Let’s hear from others: what’s the biggest risk we need to solve?” The duel dissolves into a group conversation. Later, the leader checks in privately with both individuals, affirming their value. At the next team session, she says: “Strong disagreement is expected. What matters is how we handle it together.”

Leadership moves – before conflict

1. Agree the rules of engagement. Ground rules like “Challenge ideas, not people” set clear boundaries before tensions rise.

2. Clarify decision authority. Uncertainty over who decides fuels defensiveness. Clear roles reduce ego-driven battles.

3. Anticipate flashpoints. If friction is likely, prepare both sides: “Frame this as exploring options, not proving who is right.”

Leadership moves – during conflict

1. Interrupt without blame. “Let’s pause and slow down.” Neutral language lowers heat without shaming.

2. Value the passion. “This shows how much you care about the outcome.” Naming energy turns heat into commitment.

3. Open the circle. “We have heard two views, who else has a perspective?” This widens the dialogue beyond the duel.

4. Reduce urgency. “We don’t need a final answer today.” Lower stakes prevent people from digging in.

5. Build listening muscle. Ask each to summarise the other’s point before restating their own. This repairs misinterpretation.

Leadership moves – after conflict

1. Repair in private. Affirm each person’s value and hear their perspective. This prevents lingering resentment.

2. Reflect together. “What worked, and what can we do differently next time?” Joint learning replaces blame.

3. Normalise openly. “Conflict means we care. Our task is to use it well.” Public reframing reduces stigma.

4. Reset the climate. Close with a forward step: “Let’s test both approaches for two weeks.” Progress signals recovery.

Reflections for leaders

• Do I mistake silence for agreement, or recognise it as fear?

• Do I intervene in ways that protect both dignity and progress?

• Do I frame disagreement as destructive, or as a sign of commitment?

2 – Status threat and ego protection

Many clashes are not really about the issue at hand but about identity. Neuroscience shows that when status feels threatened, the brain activates the same regions as physical pain (Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2004). David Rock’s SCARF model highlights status as one of the five social drivers that trigger a sense of threat or reward. In conflict, strong personalities often fight not for facts but for dignity.

When people sense that their expertise or authority is undermined, they double down. What appears to be stubbornness may actually be a form of self-protection. Leaders often misinterpret this, treating the heat as a factual dispute rather than a response to a perceived loss of standing. The leader’s role is to mitigate status threats so that the focus can return to substance.

Vignette: Two department heads exchange sharp messages in a Slack channel. One posts: “This plan is naïve, it ignores how real operations work.” The other replies: “At least I’m not clinging to outdated models.” Colleagues watch silently as tension escalates in real time. The leader intervenes directly in the channel: “Both of you bring critical expertise we depend on. Let’s pause the thread and regroup tomorrow to map the risks you each see.” By affirming their standing and reframing the task, the leader cools the exchange and moves it offline.

Leadership signals – before conflict

1. Signal respect. Publicly name the strengths in the room: “We’re lucky to have deep marketing and ops expertise here.” Recognition inoculates against defensiveness.

2. Signal expectation of difference. “We will hear varied perspectives today, that’s a strength.” Framing disagreement as normal lowers the sting when it arrives.

3. Signal the shared objective. Anchor everyone in the common task: “Our goal is the safest, most scalable design.” This makes the debate about purpose, not ego.

Leadership signals – during conflict

1. Signal dignity. Step in quickly: “Let’s critique the idea, not the person.” Protecting identity allows the debate to continue productively.

2. Signal value. “Both of you bring important experience here.” This reassurance reduces the need for self-defence.

3. Signal reframing. “It’s not who is right, it’s what risks we need to manage.” Moving the frame from ego to task lowers heat.

4. Signal curiosity. Ask: “What outcome are you most trying to protect?” Questions about intent redirect attention away from personal attack.

5. Signal neutrality. Use impersonal language: “this option” instead of “your option.” It separates identity from idea.

Leadership micro-scripts – after conflict

1. Private reassurance. “Your expertise is central, I don’t want one heated exchange to diminish that. Why it works: Reaffirms standing, reduces the fear of reputational damage, and restores willingness to contribute.

2. Paired reset. “Name one thing you valued in the other’s point yesterday.” Why it works: A small act of recognition cools residual hostility and makes mutual respect visible again.

3. Public reframe. “Our strength is not one voice winning, but the mix of perspectives.” Why it works: Recasts conflict as an asset to the team, lowering defensiveness and raising collective pride.

4. Progress recognition. “That debate helped us spot a risk we might have missed.” Why it works: Turns a painful clash into shared credit, which protects dignity and reframes conflict as productive.

Reflections for leaders

• Do I notice when heat is about threatened identity rather than substance?

• Do I send clear signals of respect and value before, during, and after conflict?

• Am I careful to restore dignity once the clash subsides, or do I let people carry silent wounds?

3 – Norms for constructive dissent

Strong personalities often clash not only because their views differ, but because there is no agreed-upon way to disagree. Without boundaries, conversations slip from substance into style,  voices rise, arms fold, and the debate becomes about dominance rather than ideas. Research confirms the benefits: teams with explicit ground rules exhibit higher cohesion, sharper decision-making, and fewer destructive conflicts (Cunha et al., 2022). In software project teams, clarity of norms even outperformed psychological safety as a predictor of satisfaction and performance (Lenberg & Feldt, 2018).

The implication is straightforward: conflict is not just about relationships, but also about infrastructure. Norms are the architecture that makes dissent safe and productive.

Case example: UCSF Medical Centre

At UCSF, interdisciplinary medical teams created ground rules for difficult discussions. Two stood out: “Assume good intent, especially under pressure” and “Challenge ideas, not individuals.” In high-stakes debates about patient care, these agreements prevented clashes between experts from spiralling into ego battles. By protecting the dialogue, the rules protected outcomes.

Leader’s checklist for conflict norms

These norms can be adapted with your team. The key is to co-create them, make them visible, and hold each other accountable.

1. Challenge ideas, not people. Keep critique on the work, not the person.

2. Listen to understand before responding. Curiosity reduces defensiveness.

3. Balance airtime. Ensure every voice is heard, not just the loudest.

4. Stay anchored to purpose. Link disagreements back to the larger goal.

5. Use respectful language. Reframe blame into responsibility.

6. Make it safe to be wrong. Treat mistakes and dissent as part of learning.

7. Acknowledge contributions. End tough debates with recognitions or appreciations.

Leadership practices

Set

• Co-create the rules. People honour what they help create. Involving the team builds legitimacy.

• Make them visible. Put them on agendas, wall charts, or digital boards. Visibility signals seriousness.

• Rehearse in low stakes. Practise norms in small disagreements before testing them in bigger ones.

Use

• Invoke the rules. “We agreed to critique ideas, not people.” Shared language depersonalises intervention.

• Balance voices. “Two strong perspectives are on the table — who else can add?” Equal airtime disrupts duels.

• Reframe personal jabs. Translate “You’re blocking us” into “This approach may slow us down.”

• Pause to reset. “Which of our norms do we need most right now?” Naming the rule brings people back on track.

• Affirm dissent as an asset. “This tension shows we care. That’s a strength.”

Review

• Debrief explicitly. Ask: “Did we live up to our agreements in that debate?” Reflection reinforces practice.

• Adapt the norms. If a rule isn’t working, rewrite it together. Living norms build trust.

• Celebrate compliance. Highlight how norms improved the outcome: “That shift caught a blind spot.”

• Check in privately. Ask individuals: “How was that for you?” This surfaces fallout the group may not see.

Reflections for leaders

• Do our norms actively shape behaviour, or are they decorative artefacts?

• Do I consistently apply the same standards to myself that I expect of others?

• Do I praise people who argue fiercely yet stay committed to the team’s shared purpose?

4 – Emotional contagion and reducing tension

Conflict is rarely just cognitive; it is deeply emotional. Neuroscience shows that emotions spread rapidly through groups via mirror neurons and non-verbal cues (Barsade, 2002). When someone raises their voice, sighs with frustration, or crosses their arms in resistance, others unconsciously echo the mood. One person’s irritation can ripple through a whole room in seconds.

Strong personalities intensify this effect. Their energy, tone, and body language often set the emotional weather for everyone else. A dismissive laugh, an eye-roll, or a sharp retort can make colleagues withdraw or retaliate in kind. What begins as a disagreement of ideas quickly becomes a clash of states.

Leaders cannot opt out of this dynamic; they are part of the emotional system. In fact, research shows that leaders’ moods have a disproportionate effect on team performance, influencing motivation, creativity, and even ethical behaviour (Gooty et al., 2010). In moments of conflict, the leader becomes the thermostat of the room: if they escalate, the temperature spikes; if they steady themselves, the group cools.

This is why emotional regulation is one of the most powerful levers for leadership in conflict. It is not about suppressing feelings or enforcing calm. It is about setting a tone that allows strong emotions to be acknowledged, but not to take control. Done well, it transforms conflict from corrosive to constructive.

Vignette: A client pitch on edge. Two senior leaders present to a major client. Midway through, disagreement flares. One interrupts sharply: “That’s unrealistic, we’ve never delivered on that timeline.” The other snaps back: “At least I understand what the client needs.” The client shifts uncomfortably. The leader running the pitch steps in, lowers her voice, slows her words: “I can feel strong commitment here. Let’s pause for two minutes and regroup our options.” The deliberate calm breaks the spiral. When the group reconvenes, the atmosphere is steadier, and the client stays engaged.

Leadership temperature controls

Cool down

• How to do it: Start every meeting with a calm, steady pace. If voices rise, lower your tone and volume instead of matching theirs. Use phrases like: “Let’s take a moment to slow this down.” If tension lingers, say what you observe: “I can feel frustration in the room.”

• Why it works: People unconsciously mirror the emotional state of those around them. A calmer leader slows the group’s tempo. Naming emotion makes it less overwhelming, reducing its grip on behaviour.

Release pressure

• How to do it: If discussion loops unproductively, call a two-to-three-minute break. Encourage people to stretch, breathe, or step away. Alternatively, shift from spoken debate to visual notes on a whiteboard or shared screen, so everyone can see the ideas rather than fight over them.

• Why it works: Pauses reduce physiological arousal, lowering cortisol and adrenaline. Writing moves the conflict from between people to on the wall, making it a joint problem rather than a personal clash.

Inject lightness

• How to do it: Introduce humour carefully,  not sarcasm, but a gentle quip or exaggeration that relieves tension: “We’re not solving world peace today, let’s choose one next step.” Or ask each person to name something they value in another’s input before closing.

• Why it works: Lightness activates positive emotion, which broadens perspective and makes people less defensive. Appreciation restores human connection, reducing the sense of threat.

Reset focus

• How to do it: Bring people back to the bigger purpose with a direct question: “What’s the outcome we’re solving for?” If the clash feels stuck, reduce pressure: “We don’t need to decide this today,  let’s outline options first.”

• Why it works: Conflict escalates when urgency feels absolute. Re-anchoring to shared goals shifts attention away from personal rivalry. Lowering time pressure softens the instinct to “win” and makes compromise possible.

First aid kit for two-person clashes

1. Structured turn-taking

• How to do it: Give each person two uninterrupted minutes to speak. Then require them to summarise the other’s view before restating their own.

• Why it works: Slows the pace, prevents interruption, and forces real listening. Misinterpretations are corrected, and both feel heard.

2. Reframe blame into needs

• How to do it: When someone says, “You never listen,” reframe: “So being heard is important here — how can we make that happen?” Keep language neutral and focus on the need, not the accusation.

• Why it works: Shifts the frame from attack to problem-solving. Identifying needs invites solutions; blame just entrenches positions.

3. Lower the stakes

• How to do it: Acknowledge the tension, but remove the “now or never” framing: “We’re exploring ideas today, not locking decisions.”

• Why it works: Urgency escalates defensiveness. By lowering the stakes, people are more willing to share openly without fear of immediate loss.

4. Take it offline

• How to do it: If the dispute hijacks the group, say: “Let’s pause this here and continue together after the meeting.” Arrange a one-to-one or small session later.

• Why it works: Protects the wider team from being drawn into a duel. A smaller setting reduces performance pressure and allows for more candid repair.

5. End with appreciation

• How to do it: Close by asking each person to name one quality, skill, or idea they value in the other. Keep it specific and authentic.

• Why it works: Appreciation humanises the other person again. It softens hostility and re-establishes mutual respect, making future collaboration possible.

Reflection scenarios for leaders

• When I feel heat rising, do I match it or steady it?

• When the room goes quiet, do I mistake calm for safety or recognise suppressed emotion?

• When two voices dominate, do I protect the group by pausing or by postponing?

• When tension passes, do I close with repair or let resentment linger?

5 – Reframing positions to interests

When two strong personalities clash, they often argue from fixed positions, rigid statements of what must happen: “We must launch in Q2.” “We cannot cut headcount.” Positions are brittle. They invite zero-sum battles where one side wins and the other loses.

But beneath every position lies an interest, the underlying concern that makes the position matter. “We must launch in Q2” may really mean “We need speed to beat competitors.” “We cannot cut headcount” may mean “We need stability to retain staff.” Once interests are visible, new options often emerge that satisfy both sides. Fisher and Ury’s classic work on negotiation (1981) showed that interests unlock creativity, while positions trap people in stalemate.

For leaders, the role is not to argue which position is right, but to help people surface the why beneath the what.

Contrast vignette: Same meeting, two outcomes

Version 1 – stuck in positions

In a strategy review, sales insists: “We must launch in Q2.” Operations counters: “We can’t deliver before Q4.” Voices rise, each repeats their demand louder, the meeting ends in deadlock.

Version 2 – surfacing interests

The same clash begins. This time the leader interrupts: “Let’s pause. Sales, why does Q2 matter to you? Ops,  what risk are you most concerned about in Q2?” Sales explains the competitor threat. Ops explains capacity limits. With interests on the table, the team designs a phased release: an early pilot to meet market speed, with full rollout later to protect stability. Conflict turns into a creative solution.

The Interests Toolbox

Leaders can use simple tools to move people from entrenched demands to deeper needs:

1. The “Five Whys” dialogue

• How to do it: Ask why a position matters, then keep asking “why” up to five times. Go beyond surface reasons to core drivers like trust, recognition, or risk.

• Why it works: Repetition digs below demands into motives people often have not voiced even to themselves.

2. Swap and state

• How to do it: Each person speaks their view for two minutes. Then they must summarise the other’s perspective and interests before restating their own.

• Why it works: Prevents caricature, reduces misinterpretation, and highlights shared ground.

3. Shared interests map

• How to do it: Write each position on a board. Under each, list the interests driving it. Circle overlaps such as “protecting customers” or “meeting deadlines.”

• Why it works: Externalises the debate and makes common ground visible, shifting energy from confrontation to collaboration.

Leadership practices

Prevent stalemate

• Anticipate hot spots. “Where might positions harden?” Be ready with questions that surface interests. Thinking ahead prevents leaders from being caught off guard and enables timely interventions before voices entrench.

• Frame meetings around needs. “Today we are exploring what matters most to each of us, not just preferred solutions.” Sets the expectation that people will go deeper than demands, reducing the chance of superficial battles.

• Prime curiosity. Encourage people to ask, “Help me understand why that is important to you.” Curiosity disrupts defensiveness. When people feel understood, they soften their stance.

Unlock needs

• Interrupt repetition. “We’re restating positions. Let’s step back and ask why each matters.” Naming the loop breaks the cycle and invites participants to shift gears.

• Surface underlying risks. “What outcome are you most trying to protect?” Reframes conflict from a battle of preferences into a shared exercise in risk management.

• Translate into interests. “So when you say Q2, the interest is speed to market.” Makes hidden motives explicit, which creates space for problem-solving.

• Highlight common ground. “Both of you want customer success — one is focused on timing, the other on stability.” Showing overlap reframes the clash as two sides of the same goal rather than opposing camps.

Embed learning

• Document the interests. Capture them alongside decisions: “Sales needs speed; Ops needs stability. Prevents the group from slipping back into positional fights in future debates.

• Check alignment privately. “Did you feel your concern was understood?”Protects dignity, prevents resentment, and reassures people their voice still counts.

• Revisit interests in future debates. “Do X and Y still hold?” Builds continuity and trust by showing that earlier concerns are not forgotten.

• Celebrate balanced solutions. “This approach protected both speed and capacity.”  Reinforces the value of compromise, turning what felt like concession into shared success.

Reflections for leaders

• When debates repeat, do I notice the trap of positions, or do I get pulled into them myself?

• How often do I ask, “Why does this matter to you?” in the middle of a clash?

• Do I make shared interests visible, or let them remain buried under competing demands?

6 – Shared identity and superordinate goals

Conflict often intensifies when people identify more strongly with their role or department than with the collective. Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) suggests that when individuals define themselves in terms of in-groups and out-groups, competition intensifies. The classic Robbers Cave experiment (Sherif et al., 1961) demonstrated this vividly: two groups of boys placed in competition quickly grew hostile. Yet when given superordinate goals, tasks that required cooperation, like fixing a shared water supply, hostility dissolved, and a new shared identity emerged.

The same is true at work. If marketing and operations see themselves only as defenders of their silos, every disagreement becomes turf protection. If they see themselves first as one team serving the customer, their differences become complementary. The leader’s role is to keep identity anchored in the larger “we.”

Vignette: A cross-department project offsite – At an offsite to launch a cross-department initiative, tensions emerge. Engineering argues for quality over speed; sales pushes for rapid release. The facilitator pauses the agenda and runs a short exercise: each group writes on cards, “We succeed as one team when…” Responses range from “when we fix problems together” to “when we put the customer first.” The cards are read aloud and pinned to the wall. The atmosphere shifts. Arguments continue, but with more generosity: both sides are now negotiating as part of a single shared effort.

Pair exercises you can explore

1. Common purpose conversation (10 minutes): Bring the two people together. Ask each: “What outcome matters most to you in this work?” Let them speak without interruption. Summarise the overlaps back. It shows that beneath different positions lies shared intent, often tied to the customer or mission.

2. Role Reversal (15 minutes): Ask each to argue the other’s perspective as persuasively as possible for five minutes. Then let the other affirm or add what was missed.. This builds empathy and reduces caricature by forcing each to step into the other’s shoes.

3. “We Are One When…” (10 minutes): Ask each to complete the sentence “We are at our best together when…” three times. Share aloud and capture overlaps. It creates positive reference points for unity that can be recalled in later conflicts.

Team ritual: “We Are One When…”

As a whole team, end a meeting or offsite by inviting everyone to finish the sentence: “We are one team when…” Capture responses on sticky notes or a shared board. Cluster the themes, for example: “when we listen,” “when we solve for the customer,” “when we back each other.”

Revisit this ritual in future debates: “We said we are one when we prioritise the customer. How does this decision measure up?” This turns shared identity from an abstract value into a living practice.

Leadership practices

Before conflict

• Establish team identity early. “We sit here as a leadership team first, functional leads second.” This sets belonging at the collective level before silos compete.

• Name the superordinate goal. “Our priority this quarter is customer retention.”. It keeps people anchored in an external purpose, not internal rivalry.

• Celebrate cross-boundary wins. Highlight successes that depended on collaboration. It builds pride in team identity, making it easier to return to in tough moments.

During conflict

• Call out siloed framing. “I hear the operations perspective, but let’s solve this as one team.” This nterrupts factional thinking and reasserts collective responsibility.

• Re-anchor to purpose. “Which option best serves our shared goal?”. This elevates the debate above personal wins to a bigger standard.

• Highlight common intent. “Both of you want the product to succeed — you differ on how.”. This reminds people they are allies in outcome, even if rivals in approach.

• Use inclusive language. Favour “we” and “our,” not “you” and “they.” Subtle cues reinforce unity and reduce othering.

• Balance recognition. Acknowledge contributions from both sides. This stops conflict from producing winners and losers.

After conflict

• Reinforce collective wins. “Our final plan combined the best of both perspectives.” This converts tension into pride in shared achievement.

• Address silo pull privately. If someone defaults to functional defence, explore one-to-one. This tackles recurring patterns without public shaming.

• Revisit shared commitments. “We agreed our first loyalty is to this table.” This builds continuity and consistency.

• Celebrate team outcomes. Recognise results achieved across functions, not just within them. This reinforces the idea that the whole is greater than the parts.

Reflections for leaders

• Do I reinforce function first and team second, or the other way around?

• When conflict arises, do I pull people back to shared purpose or allow silos to dominate?

• Do I help individuals rediscover unity after clashes, not just the group as a whole?

Wrapping up: The six lenses from behavioural science offer practical ways to intervene when strong personalities collide. They provide leaders with tools to de-escalate tension, protect dialogue, and transform conflicts into progress. But tactics, however useful, are not the whole story. At some point, leaders face a deeper choice about how they see their role in conflict.

Do they see themselves as referees, blowing the whistle when rules are broken? Or as hosts, setting the conditions for spirited debate that strengthens the group? This shift in stance, from control to care, from adjudication to stewardship, shapes whether conflict becomes a source of fracture or of resilience.

Stewardship perspective: Hosting the table

Managing conflict between strong personalities is not about forcing calm or keeping order. It is about the kind of table a leader sets, and how they choose to host it. Think of leadership here less as a referee on the pitch and more as the host of a table. A referee enforces rules and punishes fouls. A host attends to atmosphere, ensures every guest has a place, and invites the full range of voices while keeping the conversation nourishing for all.

Imagine a divisional offsite where sales and marketing leaders sit down to plan next quarter. The table is set, not literally with food, but with an agenda, space to speak, and the promise that every function has a voice. Early in the session, tensions rise. Sales pushes for an aggressive launch date. Marketing counters sharply that customer campaigns will collapse if rushed. Voices edge higher, frustration shows. In another setting, this could spiral into rivalry.

But the leader hosting the session leans in, not to silence them, but to steady the table. She slows her voice, acknowledges the heat, and widens the circle: “I hear the passion here. Before we continue, I want to bring in others, what do you see as the biggest risk in this launch?” The duel becomes a dialogue. Different perspectives surface.

Later, she checks in privately with both sales and marketing heads. Not to scold, but to affirm their value and ask what they need to move forward with respect. At the next meeting, she reminds the group: “This table is for arguing fiercely about the work, not about each other. Conflict is welcome, but only if it strengthens us.”

The discussions continue. Disagreements flare again at times, but now within the boundaries of belonging. What might have been remembered as turf war becomes remembered as progress.

This hosting metaphor illuminates the deeper contrasts beneath the six theories:

 • Safety vs. Care. Safety is not simply the absence of harm, it is the felt sense that someone is stewarding the container. A host makes sure no one leaves the table diminished.

 • Status vs. Dignity. Strong personalities often fear losing face. A referee might separate them; a host ensures dignity is preserved, even in disagreement.

 • Norms vs. Trust. Rules matter, but trust comes from living them together. A host helps the group create its own agreements, not just comply with imposed ones.

 • Emotion vs. Tone. Feelings will run hot. A host does not extinguish them but sets the emotional tone so passion can stay constructive.

• Interests vs. Possibility. Beneath rigid positions are interests and beneath interests, possibilities. A host asks why it matters, opening new options that no one voice could see alone.

 • Identity vs. Whole. Each person arrives as part of a role or faction. The host invites them to sit first as members of the whole, loyal to the table they share.

Stewardship means recognising that conflict is not an interruption of work but part of the work itself. It accepts that strong personalities bring both risk and gift: the risk of fracture, the gift of passion. A steward-leader does not suppress this passion. They channel it into the service of something larger than any one person’s win.

The question is not whether conflict will erupt; it always will when people care deeply. The question is how it will be remembered.

Conclusion: Choosing how we hold conflict

The data is precise. Unresolved conflict drains billions in lost productivity, wasted hours, and employee turnover. Nearly three hours per week are consumed in clashes that could have been avoided or better handled. And beyond the numbers, there is the personal toll: energy depleted, trust eroded, customers neglected. Conflict unmanaged is one of the quietest, costliest risks to organisational life.

But the presence of conflict itself is not the problem. In fact, research shows that high-performing teams are not immune to tension; they can manage it effectively. Strong personalities are not liabilities. They are often the most committed, the most passionate, the ones who care enough to fight for what they believe matters. The danger lies in how leaders respond when that passion collides.

Each confrontation is therefore a choice. Leaders can treat it as a distraction and shut it down, leaving scars beneath the surface. Or they can treat it as a resource, stewarding the heat into light — using the clash to sharpen decisions, uncover risks, and build resilience.

The science shows us the tools. Stewardship shows us the stance. When leaders step into conflict not as referees but as hosts, they shift the story from fracture to nourishment. A well-hosted clash becomes part of the team’s identity, remembered not for damage but for growth.

Conflict will always come. The question is whether it will be remembered as wasted time, or as the crucible where stronger teams were forged.

Do you have any tips or advice? What has worked for you? Do you have any recommended resources to explore? Thanks for reading!

Reference list

Barsade, S.G. (2002) ‘The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), pp. 644–675. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3094912 (Accessed: 5 September 2025).

CPP, Inc. (2008) Workplace conflict and how businesses can harness it to thrive. Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc. Available at: https://shop.themyersbriggs.com/pdfs/cpp_global_human_capital_report_workplace_conflict.pdf (Accessed: 5 September 2025).

Edmondson, A.C. (1999) ‘Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), pp. 350–383. Available at: https://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Group_Performance/Edmondson%20Psychological%20safety.pdf (Accessed: 5 September 2025).

Eisenberger, N.I. and Lieberman, M.D. (2004) ‘Why rejection hurts: A common neural alarm system for physical and social pain’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), pp. 294–300. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.010.

Eisenberger, N.I., Lieberman, M.D. and Williams, K.D. (2003) ‘Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion’, Science, 302(5643), pp. 290–292. doi: 10.1126/science.1089134.

Fisher, R., Ury, W. and Patton, B. (2011) Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. 3rd edn. London: Random House Business. (First published 1981.)

Gooty, J., Connelly, S., Griffith, J. and Gupta, A. (2010) ‘Leadership, affect and emotions: A state of the science review’, The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), pp. 979–1004. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.005.

Lenberg, P. and Feldt, R. (2018) ‘Psychological safety and norm clarity in software engineering teams’, arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01378. Available at: https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/1802.01378 (Accessed: 5 September 2025).

Lendi, S. (2025) ‘The hidden cost of workplace conflict: Over $350 billion lost annually in the U.S.’, PRWeb, 27 May. Available at: https://www.prweb.com/releases/the-hidden-cost-of-workplace-conflict-over-350-billion-lost-annually-in-the-us-302465232.html (Accessed: 5 September 2025).

Porath, C.L. and Pearson, C.M. (2013) ‘The price of incivility’, Harvard Business Review, 91(1–2), pp. 114–121. Available at: https://hbr.org/2013/01/the-price-of-incivility (Accessed: 5 September 2025).

Rock, D. (2008) ‘SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others’, NeuroLeadership Journal, 1, pp. 44–52. Available at: https://schoolguide.casel.org/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/SCARF-NeuroleadershipArticle.pdf (Accessed: 5 September 2025).

Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W.R. and Sherif, C.W. (1961) Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979) ‘An integrative theory of intergroup conflict’, in Austin, W.G. and Worchel, S. (eds) The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, pp. 33–47.

UCSF School of Medicine, Culture of Leadership Initiative (n.d.) Meeting facilitation – strategies and phrasing. San Francisco, CA: University of California, San Francisco. Available at: https://meded.ucsf.edu/sites/meded.ucsf.edu/files/inline-files/UCSF%20Meeting%20Facilitation%20tips%20final.pdf (Accessed: 5 September 2025).

Inc. Magazine (2025) ‘Workplace conflicts cost billions in lost productivity. Here’s how to prevent them’, Inc.com, 28 May. Available at: https://www.inc.com/kit-eaton/workplace-conflicts-costs-billions-in-lost-productivity-heres-how-to-prevent-them/91194829 (Accessed: 5 September 2025).

Note on CPP data: the widely cited “2.8 hours per week” and “$359 billion” figures originate from CPP’s 2008 report; several 2025 summaries repeat these numbers, but the primary source remains CPP (2008).