Workplace Disagreements Checklist

When workplace disagreements reach a fever pitch, there are often interpersonal issues at play alongside a difference of opinion. Hands-down, the most transformative framework I’ve discovered for handling slighted feelings or quiet tension is that of intent versus impact.

At the risk of oversimplifying the concept, when we get emotionally triggered by someone, we often attribute intent to their behavior – which may or may not be actually present. Perhaps they leave us out of an email thread and when we get wind of it, we perceive the omission as deliberate. Or we get so excited that we talk over someone in a meeting, and they assume we’re intentionally silencing them.

This can move us in different directions: seethingly resentful or openly hostile are two common results. But the tension can be overcome by having a conversation that focuses on the impacts of behavior rather than bickering over intent. The fact is, intent doesn’t matter, if the impact is negative. And that impact must be addressed if you’re to move forward.

If you suspect an intent vs impact conversation is in order, try broaching the subject with an opener like, “I’m not sure what your intent was when you made that comment, but the impact on me was ________,” or “I’m concerned that when I said X, it may have had an unintended impact of ________.” Then invite the other party to share their perspective, and do your best to listen with an open mind.

Nothing stokes conflict better than a misunderstanding of goals. One party might as well be trying to solve a problem the other person doesn’t even see – if you’ve assumed the wrong end point (or assumed that the other people involved are on board with yours, without expressly articulating it), productive conversation will be hard to come by.

A friend of mine recently hit up against this issue when mentoring a junior designer who kept coming to him with ideas: “What if we make it this color? What if we used this technology?” The junior colleague’s approach wasn’t conducive to collaboration because he failed to articulate the problems he was trying to solve – or put another way, the goals he was trying to achieve – through his suggestions. Now that he’s learned to reframe his comments to identify a problem first, he’s better able to convince his colleagues to see the benefits of his proposed solutions.

If you can agree on your goals, you’re at least halfway to finding common ground for agreement on how to reach them.

Even if everyone agrees on the big-picture goals, individual team members are liable to have different priorities based on their area of responsibility, personal work style, and workload (just how many “important” issues can you reasonably expect to tackle in a day?).

We’re all familiar with the "pick any two" rule when weighing fast, good, and cheap as project priorities – and you’ve probably heard of Stephen Covey’s important-vs-urgent matrix. These are both useful tools for checking your colleagues’ priorities. Ask them to clarify their priorities, and articulate yours so you can assess whether a priority mismatch is to blame for your disagreement.

It could well be that your teammate’s insistence on sourcing the least expensive materials is in tension with your commitment to quality. Laying that out in black and white will make a productive conversation far more likely than arguing which is better: cheap or good.

If you’re on the same page with goals and priorities, but still at a loggerhead, consider that you may have conflicting definitions of success. Ask your opponent(s) to describe to you what their vision of a successful outcome would be. 

Get as many details as you can – both measurable and qualitative outcomes are valuable to hear. You may discover some core areas of disagreement that can be teased out once a clear picture of the ideal future has been painted. 

Maybe they’re imagining a utopia that doesn’t look quite so sunny to you. In that case, it’s no wonder you disagree on how to get there. But if you can understand how an ideal outcome looks to them, you’re better equipped to negotiate a win-win approach.

It may turn out that your teammate is motivated by accolades – industry awards or just a nod from the boss – while you’re more focused on bringing your project in under budget. Articulating these underlying (and often unconscious) assumptions puts you in a much better position to succeed on everyone’s terms.

In situations where you feel like the other party simply doesn’t respect or appreciate your perspective, try this bit of conversational judo courtesy of Brooke Allen:

Step 1. Describe the problem to the person on the other side.

Step 2. Ask, “What would you do if you were me?”

Step 3. Shut up—anything you say next will weaken your stance.