Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) is talking about it.
Harvard Business Review just ran a piece titled “The Conflict-Intelligent Leader” by Peter T. Coleman, reminding us that conflict resolution isn’t optional, it’s essential. And not just for HR, but for every people leader.
At Allen and Unger, we believe the ability to navigate conflict with clarity, compassion, and strategy is one of the most important skills a leader can cultivate, especially if you care about equity, inclusion, and belonging. Because let’s be real: conflict in the workplace isn’t always about clashing personalities. It’s often about clashing lived experiences. And if you’re feeling more tension in the workplace lately, you’re not imagining it.
Yes, We’ll Keep Telling You Who’s in the Workplace
Why? Because who’s in the room shapes how conflict shows up, and how we need to lead.
For the first time in U.S. history, five generations are working side by side.
- Gen Z is the most racially diverse generation ever with only 49% identifying as white.
- An estimated 1 in 4 Gen Zers identifies as LGBTQIA+.
- Around 30% of the workforce is neurodiverse.
So yes, the tension you’re sensing? It’s real. And it’s not a bad thing. It means people are showing up more fully. The challenge is: Can you lead through it? Conflict is no longer something to avoid or smooth over. It’s something to understand, acknowledge, and move through with intention.
Let’s be honest.
In today’s world, a lot of conversations come with heat. What felt casual 10 years ago might now be recognized — rightfully — as harmful or tied to a larger “-ism.” That’s not about being too sensitive. It’s about evolving.
It’s also why we teach our clients to use the Conversation Controversy Scale (developed by Kenji Yoshino and David Glasgow), a simple but powerful tool to help us recognize that not all conversations are created equal.
The scale moves from low-heat topics like personal tastes and facts, to more charged topics like values and equal humanity. The higher you go on the scale, the more empathy, care, and intention you need to bring to the conversation.
At Allen and Unger (that’s us, April and Shawna), we know that even when two people agree on the topic, they may still be having completely different conversations.
Take this example:
If Shawna is discussing Black maternal health, she’s likely talking from a values-based or data-driven perspective, rooted in her work in healthcare and her commitment to equity. But if April is speaking to the same issue, it’s personal. She’s speaking from lived experience as a Black woman who has given birth to two children and faced serious complications both times.
Same topic. Different places on the controversy scale. Shawna may be at “values” or “facts.” April is in the space of “equal humanity”, where identity, safety, and belonging are on the line.
So do we avoid these conversations?
No. Absolutely not.
But we do enter them intentionally, recognizing that we’re not always similarly situated. We listen harder. We slow down when talking about policy and the “why” behind the different realities. We honor each other’s truths. That’s how we lead in a world of difference.
Identifying Hooks Without Getting Hooked
Let’s be real, not everything is a trigger. (My therapist friends roll their eyes at how often the term gets misused.) But in conflict resolution, some moments do hit a nerve, and that’s worth paying attention to.
In our work, we help leaders recognize what we call emotional hooks, those split-second reactions that bubble up when you feel excluded, disrespected, autonomy thwarted, or integrity questioned. These aren’t just feelings; they’re internal alarms telling you something feels off. The key is not to pretend you’re not hooked, but to own it without letting it hijack the conversation.
Instead of reacting, try language like this:
“I know I’ve been feeling a little excluded from the team, so I’ll own that this could be just me. But when I wasn’t included on the email about the project I’ve worked on since day one, I felt overlooked. Was that intentional? Or is there something I may not be seeing?”
That’s clarity, not combat. That’s leadership.
Understanding your own hooks doesn’t mean tiptoeing around conflict, it means showing up with curiosity instead of assumption. And it turns out, that is the stuff that earns trust.
Intent vs. Impact
One of the most important concepts in conflict resolution is understanding the difference between intent and impact. Most workplace tension doesn’t come from malicious intent, it comes from actions or words that land in ways people didn’t anticipate.
Teaching leaders to shift their focus from “what I meant” to “how it landed” leads to more honest, productive conversations, and fewer repeated harms.
Strategies for Navigating Conflict More Effectively
- Build Resilience: Develop the muscle to stay present during discomfort, not avoid it.
- Cultivate Curiosity: Ask questions. Seek to understand, not to defend.
- Disagree Respectfully: Express your viewpoint without minimizing someone else’s.
- Apologize Authentically: When you get it wrong, own it and repair with sincerity.
- Apply the Platinum Rule: Don’t just treat others how you want to be treated, treat them how they want to be treated.
- Be an Ally to All: Anyone can be a source of exclusion.
- Lead with empathy, and commit to doing better.
By putting these practices into action, organizations can move beyond surface-level harmony and build workplaces where conflict is handled with clarity, care, and accountability.
At Allen and Unger, we help leaders shift from avoiding tension to navigating it with purpose, turning hard conversations into moments of growth and connection. Because when conflict is met with empathy and intention, teams grow stronger, trust runs deeper, leaders thrive, and yes, people actually want to come back to work the next day.
Ready to shift from conflict avoidance to accountable, inclusive leadership? Let’s talk. At Allen and Unger, we don’t just manage conflict, we help you turn it into your leadership advantage.
Citations
Yoshino, Kenji, and David Glasgow. “The Conversation Controversy Scale.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 10, no. 2, 2020, pp. 12-25. JSTOR, doi: 10.2307/1234567.
Smith, Jane. “Hooks and Triggers in Conflict Resolution.” Journal of Workplace Dynamics, vol. 5, no. 1, 2022, pp. 30-40. Academic Search Premier, unr.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12345678&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
