Conflict isn’t bad, but mishandling it is. Here’s how one executive turned a workplace standoff into collaboration and trust.
Every leader spends part of their day managing conflict, whether it’s small disagreements over trade-offs or a full-blown standoff over strategic priorities. Research by the Eckerd College professors who developed the Conflict Dynamics Profile (CDP)[1] suggests that more than a third of a typical manager’s time is devoted to handling conflict and its consequences—and that up to two-thirds of performance problems can be traced back to poorly managed conflict.
The reality is simple: conflict itself isn’t the problem. Indeed, productive conflict can sharpen ideas and lead to better insights. Badly managed conflict, however, hurts organizations at all levels. Avoiding conflict, refusing to acknowledge friction, and turning the focus from issues to people all damage trust and erode effectiveness. Sound familiar?
With care and practice, you can turn conflict into a source of insight and durable solutions instead of short-term fixes
The best leaders don’t fear conflict: they learn how to lean into it. With care and practice, you can turn conflict into a source of insight and durable solutions instead of short-term fixes. You can discover ways to turn disagreements into sources of innovation, insight, and stronger relationships. But a hands-off approach is no approach at all: tensions simmer, pressure builds, and even seasoned professionals can find themselves falling back into avoidance, defensiveness, or worse. Our biology plays a role: once the amygdala triggers a threat response, the fight-or-flight reflex takes over and logic often loses to emotion.
I recently worked through some conflict resolution challenges with a senior executive at a Fortune 100 tech company. Let’s call him Zaid. Zaid’s challenge lent itself to a case study in constructive conflict management, illustrating a simple but powerful principle I call giving them the problem.
The Case Study: Turning a Stalemate into Collaboration
Zaid found himself locked in an increasingly tense conflict with his colleague Sheila, the head of product engineering, over how to execute a major software upgrade project. Zaid, who led operations, believed the work should be developed internally to ensure quality and control. Sheila insisted they outsource the work to a vendor: it would be faster, cheaper, and, in her view, the only way to meet the CEO’s timeline.
What began as a healthy debate had hardened into something personal. Meetings grew strained. Both stopped copying each other on key emails. Each quietly rallied allies in their own departments, with both camps entrenched in passive resistance. The project, a C-suite priority, was slipping further behind schedule while both leaders avoided what looked like an inevitable direct confrontation.
Finally, after another unproductive steering committee meeting, Zaid asked Sheila to meet one-on-one. “We can’t keep dancing around this,” he told her. She agreed—reluctantly.
When they met, the conversation started stiffly. Each restated their case, this time with more heat than before. Zaid pointed out that previous vendor-led projects had missed critical handoffs and quality gates. Sheila countered that operations “always thinks they need to be in control” and that internal projects often bogged down in bureaucracy.
“I’ve been fighting to win the battle instead of trying to solve the problem. You feel strongly that outsourcing is the right path. What if I put the ball in your court?”
For a moment, it looked like the argument would spiral. Then Zaid paused. “You know what,” he said, “I’ve been fighting to win the battle instead of trying to solve the problem. You feel strongly that outsourcing is the right path. What if I put the ball in your court? You design the approach you believe will work best, including vendor selection and risk management. I’ll support it fully—but I want you to own it.”
That shift changed everything. The tone softened. Sheila hesitated, then said, “If you’re serious, I’d want to build in some internal checkpoints to make sure we don’t lose control of the critical path. Could we design that together?”
They spent the next hour mapping a hybrid plan: an external vendor for speed, but internal teams leading integration and testing. The conversation ended not with agreement on every point, but with mutual respect and shared accountability.
Within a week, they presented the joint proposal to the executive committee—together. The project moved forward with renewed momentum, and more importantly, Zaid and Sheila rebuilt trust. As Zaid later told me, “The minute I gave her the problem instead of trying force my solution, everything shifted. She stopped defending her position and took ownership of the path forward.”
Why “Giving Them the Problem” Works
The tactic Zaid used isn’t new—it’s rooted in classic negotiation theory—but it’s surprisingly underused in everyday leadership. By handing the issue back to the other party with openness and trust, you shift the dynamic: instead of seeing you as arguing for your position, others feel invited to co-own the solution. This shift changes the emotional temperature of the conversation, signals respect, diffuses defensiveness, and reframes the problem as ours, not mine versus yours.
Too often, we get mired in conflict because we can’t escape our own perspective. Our instinct is to convince the other party that we’re right, which only strengthens their conviction that they are right. We argue our point more “logically,” hoping reason will win the day, but reason rarely wins without relationship. (As marriage therapists like to say, “Do you want to be right, or do you want to be married?”)
Too often, we get mired in conflict because we can’t escape our own perspective.
The paradox is that you will resolve conflict more effectively by loosening your grip on control, not tightening it. Create space for dialogue, listen carefully, and express confidence that others can make the right call. The very act of sharing responsibility will turn opponents into collaborators.
The Real Lesson
Conflict doesn’t destroy relationships; mistrust and ego do. When we approach disagreements with curiosity and courage, we often find common ground we couldn’t see before. Giving them the problem isn’t about surrendering; it’s about empowering others to create the best solution with you. The result is deeper commitment, better decisions, and—almost always—stronger relationships.
As Zaid learned, the goal isn’t to eliminate disagreement; it’s to channel discord into progress. When leaders do that, everyone wins.
[1] See https://www.conflictdynamics.org – the CDP is a superb and straightforward tool to improve your or your team’s conflict competence.