Conflict is not a red flag. In healthy, high-performing teams, it is a sign that people are engaged and care about the outcome. The real challenge is not avoiding conflict, it's knowing how to move through it without damaging trust. At Wryver, one of the most effective approaches we use is teaching leaders to create ritual and name the storm - not just more meetings or surface-level check-ins. Ritual, in this case, means building a steady, predictable space on the calendar where teams can name what is working, what is hard, and what they need from each other. These moments become an outlet, a way to lower the pressure before it turns into resentment. They also create psychological safety and permission to tell the truth. But ritual alone is not enough. Leaders also have to name the storm when it hits. That means calling out what is being felt, even if it is uncomfortable. If tension is building, say it. If something feels off, bring it forward. People do not need every answer but they do need honesty, presence, and leadership that does not avoid the hard part. In one team, two high-performing colleagues were consistently clashing. Their conflict was showing up in meetings, in Slack messages, and in how others tiptoed around them. We introduced a shared practice and helped them kick it off. Each person filled out three prompts: What am I working on that you may not fully see or understand What do I appreciate about how you work What is the one thing that would help us work better together After a brief facilitated start to break the ice, they took it from there. There was no pressure to agree, just space to be honest. That first conversation shifted everything. The issue was not really personality, it was stress, misread intentions, and both of them feeling unseen. Once the story underneath the conflict was named, the energy changed. The strongest cultures are not built on agreement. They are built on rhythm, repair, and the courage to face what is real. Ritual provides structure. Naming the storm offers relief. Together, they create the kind of trust that holds when things get hard. And trust is not a soft skil, it is the foundation of every healthy culture and every company that intends to grow.
I am very skeptical of personally testing, but I do think most people are self-aware of their own personality "types". So, when my clients or teams have had persistent personality clashes, we resolve them in a 3-step process. The conversation is done in a group, but everyone knows the questions in advance. Each person answers a set of questions about themselves, their strengths, weaknesses and triggers (see the list at the end). We all answer each question before going to the next so that at each step everyone dwells within that topic together. Others in the group may ask questions during that process. They may also point out when someone is being dishonest (like by saying their weakness is working too hard or some other deflecting nonsense). Then each person identifies a way in which they are likely to annoy or trigger someone else. This can very specific and personal. One person may say, "I have a bad habit of interrupting. It probably annoys John." Next, everyone identifies a strategy for getting themselves "un-hooked" when someone else in the group annoys them. For instance, John from the example above might say, "I will allow the interruption and then finish my thought and point out that I prefer not to be interrupted". And finally, everyone commits to a specific strategy for reducing or stopping the behavior they have learned is most irksome to one or more peer. The person above might say "I will focus on letting others complete their thought and catch myself before interrupting." The process works on lots of levels. Everyone learns more about each other and themselves. Plus, each person is equally vulnerable when they identify some trait of their own that is annoying or discourteous. That shared humanity creates more charitable feelings toward each other. And of course, the strategies to both be less annoying and less annoyed help with the ongoing conflicts. Pretty soon they are jumping in to help each other succeed in their behavior change goals. After all, most of us have annoying traits or habits. It's easier to change yourself if everyone is working on their own bad habits with you. 1) What is your greatest strength as a person and professional. 2) What is your greatest weaknesses personally and professionally? 3) What 3 behaviors (in others) most annoy or trigger you? 4) What habit or behavioral trait of yours is most likely to annoy or frustrate others?
One of the most effective and unexpectedly transformative approaches we've found for navigating interpersonal conflict and strengthening team cohesion is Applied Improvisation. As a firm championing collaborative methods, we seek tools that foster deeper connections across diverse teams. Applied Improv is an underutilized approach that consistently surprises leaders with its impact. Unlike traditional conflict resolution strategies, improv invites team members to engage in low-stakes, playful activities encouraging listening, empathy, and trust. Through exercises rooted in "Yes, and..." thinking, participants suspend judgment, build on ideas, and stay present skills that lead to effective communication and collaboration. In one engagement, we worked with a leadership team where two department heads had longstanding tension. Rather than forcing another structured mediation, we led a short improv session exploring shared dynamics. One exercise where each person added a line to a spontaneous story shifted the atmosphere. Laughter replaced tension, and both leaders later reflected it helped them "hear each other without the baggage." From there, communication opened and collaboration followed. The beauty of Applied Improv lies in its simplicity and emotional intelligence. It fosters psychological safety, invites creativity, and models inclusive behaviors that drive strong teams. In a world where diverse perspectives are a company's greatest asset, improv helps people move past personal differences to co-create something greater. For teams exploring this approach, it's key to start with the right mindset. Improv isn't about fixing conflict; it's about creating shared experiences that build trust. Framing sessions as a chance to play and grow together helps lower defenses. Simple activities like collaborative storytelling or mirroring break the ice quickly. These aren't about performance; they're about presence, support, and attunement. What starts as laughter often uncovers deeper dynamics in a way that feels safe to explore. Leaders should embrace discomfort it signals authentic engagement. When they model vulnerability and playfulness, others follow. Reflecting afterward on how the experience felt and what lessons apply to daily work helps cement lasting change. In sensitive cases, a skilled facilitator ensures the space remains supportive. But in nearly any setting, Applied Improvisation offers something rare: a joyful, humanizing path to stronger teams.
Clashing personalities on your team can be a tough challenge for even the most experienced leader. The field of counseling and psychology can provide some insightful approaches to help navigate this often challenging team dynamic. One of the most simple yet powerful interventions that a leader can implement to help facilitate cohesion and respect is the ability to REFRAME. All business leaders know that stories are imminently powerful; they can help you sell a computer, negotiate a contract, and build lasting relationships. Your ability to "reframe" an interpersonal conflict on your team allows you to take control of the narrative and create a picture that can offer more cohesion and assist your team as whole. I am a board member of team that consist of a lead engineer and an attorney. Both, are strong and opinionated personalities in their own right and there was an instance where we were all on a fundraising call and the attorney was hesitant to answer a question that left the engineer livid. After the call, the two of them went at it; dismissing one another and criticizing the others' approach. They were both telling themselves "a story" that the call was a disaster. It was evident, to me that they were coming from two different perspectives and that all three of us were feeling the pressure to succeed. I drew upon my experience as a psychotherapist and was mindful not to "split" or take sides and to instead find a creative way to REFRAME this situation. So, I chose to reframe that instead of "being a disaster", that this interaction was exactly what the prospective funder needed to hear. I specified, "He needed to hear that our engineering team was on point and ready to roll and that our legal team was a risk management super power and that both voices were critical in ensuring trust, efficacy, and overall professionalism, even if the two perspectives were seemingly "at odds" with one another. Although, this reframe did not repair every emotion that they were experiencing, or create a Zen circle of transcendent bonding, it did allow both of them to come back to the table and continue to creative problem solving together.
When people talk about "clashing personalities," they're usually describing something else. In my experience, it's often a lack of shared language around pressure and power, and sometimes even belonging. I tell others not to rush to resolve the tension but study it. Look for the behavioral loops playing out beneath the conflict. Those roles people are unconsciously taking on (e.g., the protector, the performer, the fixer or the ghost), and the threat they're responding to. Once you see that, the clash becomes a pattern and patterns can be interrupted. One approach I've used is to pause the task and invite each person to describe how they're experiencing the room but not what they think of each other. That alone shifts the dynamic from judgment to self-awareness. Sometimes someone will say, "I feel like I'm being evaluated," or "I don't know how to contribute without stepping on toes." I tell them these aren't personality traits. They're more like survival strategies. Cohesion isn't built by getting people to like each other. It's more often built when people stop performing and start participating. And that only happens when the system makes space for complexity and when leaders make it safe to be wrong, to not know, and to shift roles. My mindset? If it feels messy, you're probably on the right track. Clarity doesn't come before discomfort. It comes after. That isn't intuitive. It's hard...but the best strategies usually are.
Managing clashing personalities isn't just about resolving conflict but rather about unlocking collective potential. One approach I've found effective is shifting the conversation from "who's right" to "what do we need to create together?" That small shift reframes the dynamic from ego to purpose. A few years ago, I led a cross-functional, multi-cultural team developing an extensive executive masterclass. None of us had worked together before, the project was brand new, the timeline was tight, and we were fully remote. Let's just say the personality mix wasn't smooth. The lead designer was fast-moving and visionary. The content strategist was deeply reflective and needed space to process. The graphics designer was opinionated, and on their own creative clock. Tension wasn't just expected, it arrived early and loudly. I realized the risk wasn't open disagreement but one voice dominating and others retreating. So instead of pushing through or trying to 'fix' personalities, I hit pause. We ran a no-nonsense values alignment session where each person named what they needed to do their best work. That surfaced something powerful. We all cared deeply about excellence and success, but had radically different definitions of what that meant. From there, we co-created team agreements. These weren't platitudes, but real, operational norms such as "share early, polish later," "ask before assuming," "silence doesn't mean agreement," and so on. Within two weeks, the friction transformed into flow. People understood each other's rhythms, respected communication preferences, and trusted that everyone brought something vital to the table. We delivered ahead of schedule but more importantly, we built a culture that didn't just tolerate differences but thrived on them. Diverse personalities aren't a problem to fix; they're the foundation of a thriving team. But diversity alone isn't enough. Trust and respect must be earned, and that only happens when each person brings meaningful value to the table. When someone doesn't contribute, it's not a personality issue but a clarity and accountability one. The key is creating a culture where every voice is heard, every strength is activated, and everyone understands what we're building together.
One thing I've learned is that you can't 'fix' personality clashes, but you can create conditions where they don't get in the way of progress. I manage both marketing and sales teams, which are typically very different personality-driven, and we once had a situation where two team leads from those respective teams just fundamentally rubbed each other the wrong way. Every cross-functional sync became a turf war, even when they were both technically right. Trying to mediate doesn't always work on peopke. What worked instead was reworking the structure of how they interacted. We reduced direct 1:1 confrontation, shifted their collaboration into shared documents and async updates, and made KPIs the neutral ground. Instead of trying to get them to like each other - we aren't in elementary school - we focused on letting them work effectively despite the tension. Over time, that asynchronization lowered the emotional temperature. Their styles never matched, but they could respect each other's results. The team dynamic improved not because we solved the clash, but because we stopped forcing harmony and started designing for friction.
One thing I do at the start of every project is have everyone write down what they think their job is, and then what they think everyone else should be doing. Then we sit around and read it all out loud. It sounds weird and awkward, I know, but how incredibly revealing it is totally compensates everything. I had one campaign a few months ago where a strategist and copywriter kept butting heads. She thought he was stepping on her toes, and he felt like she was micromanaging him. When we did this 'exercise', we found they both thought they were supposed to create the messaging framework. Nobody had ever actually said who was handling what, so they were both doing the same work and getting frustrated. Once we talked it through, everything calmed down. We figured out who would handle the framework and who would execute it, and agreed to touch base after the first draft instead of just passing documents back and forth with no real communication. This takes extra time upfront, but it prevents weeks of people working against each other. I've done it with design teams, SEO folks and even video crews. It lets everyone get their expectations out in the open before things get stressful. And the funny thing is, people are usually relieved when you do this. Everyone's been wondering about the same boundaries, but nobody wants to be the one to bring it up.
Minimum Viable Alignment. I borrowed this from Adam Grant, who insists people don't need to agree on everything. They just need to agree on what matters most. Two of our content strategists couldn't agree. One was obsessed with user data and couldn't help keeping tabs on Google Search Console and Hotjar. The other was more instinctive. She cared more about the tone and wanted to rely on her gut feeling. They had the same KPIs with completely different approaches. Monday meetings were passive-aggressive and it started getting out of hand. I asked them, "If this project was to go south, what would you blame it on?" One said ignoring data. The other said over-optimizing. I asked them to give me a shared list of 3 non-negotiables. Two months later, we got better content for our website. Yes, they still disagreed, just that it was productive this time round. Their list gave us the best-performing blog series we ever published. Get people to agree on enough to move forward and leave the rest.
I always pay close attention to what is not being said. Reactions, subtle shifts, and silence often reveal what words do not. During a recent huddle, several issues surfaced at once. The project manager was trying to show initiative and push the team forward. The developer, who was new to the project, didn't have space to speak and shut down. The manager jumped in and took over the conversation. That was the moment I stepped in and paused the meeting. I brought everyone back to where we actually stood in the project. I asked the PM to explain why those features were important to her. Then I turned to the developer and asked directly for his perspective. When he got interrupted again, I stopped the conversation and said, "I asked for his opinion." That shifted the tone in the room. From that point on, the team communicated more openly and respectfully. I stay emotionally present and aware. I watch how people react, not just what they say. When I sense tension or someone being shut down, I force a pause, set structure and boundaries, and make sure people have the space to contribute. That's what creates clarity, safety, and trust.
I discovered that the best way of handling personality conflicts is what I call "conflict mapping" - a conscious process where I chart each team member's underlying motives, communication style, and hot buttons, and then construct bridges between clashing styles on purpose. It is not about eliminating differences, but about utilizing them on purpose to create more. Three years ago, I had two high-performing team members who were constantly at odds with each other - Sarah, a perfectionist who wanted exhaustive documentation for everything, and Marcus, a creative who thrived at lightning-fast brainstorming and hated lengthy processes. Their conflicts were destroying team morale and delaying projects by an average of 15 days per month. I attempted conflict mapping by holding one-on-one meetings with both team members to comprehend their working styles thoroughly. I found that Sarah felt uncomfortable without proper documentation because she had previously been held responsible for project failures. At the same time, Marcus felt creatively trapped with too many processes because his great ideas were a result of explosive iteration. I redesigned their collaboration into a hybrid workflow in which Marcus would spearhead early creative sessions without much documentation, but would then have Sarah methodically organize and sharpen these concepts into executable plans. I assigned them to a large client campaign in which Marcus came up with 12 creative link-building ideas within two hours, and Sarah executed these into comprehensive execution plans that earned us 47 high-authority backlinks - our all-time highest single-campaign success rate that year. The transition was staggering. Project delays fell by 73%, and our team members indicated higher job satisfaction during our quarterly reviews. Marcus began to appreciate Sarah's planning abilities, stating, "Sarah turns my chaos into client gold," and Sarah began to appreciate Marcus's creativity, stating, "Marcus sees opportunities I would never discover on my own." I have used this conflict mapping method on 8 different team combinations over the years, and it always translates tension into productive teamwork. The secret is realizing that personality conflicts most frequently arise because of unmet professional needs rather than personal incompatibility.
Managing Cafely, a 100% remote coffee brand with international team members across diverse cultures and age groups, I learned that while personality clashes can become disruptive, they can also drive growth and improvement if approached with empathy and structure. My main focus? Being proactive through structured communications and cultural check-ins. A tactic we've found extremely helpful is a "Work Style Inventory" - an internal document that enables teammates to identify their work style preferences, triggers for conflict, and how they communicate. A case in point: a few months ago, we had two leads who were in a constant clash - one based in Southeast Asia, the other located in the United States. One of the leads was direct, while the other prioritized diplomacy and context. Deadlines were slipping. Meetings became contentious. I decided to intervene, and had both of them fill out the work style inventories and share them transparently with each other. Once each lead could see how differently they approached problem solving, frustration shifted to understanding. We supplemented this with regular one-on-one debrief and team retrospective (which we call "Coffee Chats"), and within weeks, the leads were no longer just cooperating, but collaborating. One of the leads even started using the other's language as a peace offering. This practice has now become part of our onboarding for every new hire, and our dynamic is arguably more robust than before.
A highly structured service of perspective-sharing across a 1:1 facilitated mediation session and resetting shared goals is a strategy I have found to always work well to address interpersonal conflict. This is not conflict resolution in the usual sense of it, but opening up space to enable the parties to the conflict to see why one perceives the world differently, and not attempting to win. Some years back, I managed a group within which one of the senior developers and a growth strategist were in a continuous conflict. The developer was a process guy who was afraid of risk, whereas the strategist lived on expediency and exploration. Their conflict began to spread to the other members of the team as the quality of the meetings became ugly and respect began to subside. Instead of pushing them into a group reconciliation or applying top-down rules, I organized a guided dialogue between the two of them, just as I stood on a disinterested middle ground. They both had 20 minutes to describe how they liked to work, what their motivations were, and what annoyed them, uninterrupted. Then each one took thought upon what the other had said. Their ideals were alien to each other in the beginning, but by the end, they realized that their aims were not conflicting; there was just a dissimilar willingness to get to the same destination in different ways. Subsequently, we changed the way the strategist and developer worked: we wrote when the strategist should feel free to propose new ideas to be tested, and when the developer can ask to implement the structure or slow down and validate technically. So, with that coordination, conflict fell precipitously, and output rose. It was not the tension that needed to be solved, but how the power relationship has to be restructured as empowering in the sense of complementary strengths. The same individuals who were destroying one another became sounding boards for each other. In three months, we launched a new product feature that neither one of us would have been able to create individually. Finally, a verbal agreement after focused discussion and realignment of goals regarding common goals was what transformed the war into a strength instead of a division.
I was managing a multi-national team, highly diverse team within a leading clean energy organization. I was the newcomer and thus the recipient of the conflict from my employees. At the same time, my leader enjoyed stirring the pot in lieu of facilitating greater respect. The approach that worked for me was to individualize conversations, recognize positive qualities and skillsets, develop strategies to better engage each team member and show appropriate enthusiasm for their ideas and suggestions. Of course, I had to wear a thick skin. Over time, respect built between my most problematic team member and myself...the one seemingly determined to prove I was the lesser qualified between us. Today, after massive layoffs at that organization, he and I happily work together on our own business presently in development. We progressed from both of us wanting to quit our jobs at the energy company to creating something wonderful together! Respect grows when properly fostered with patience, tenacity and kindness.
Juggling teams from a variety of cultures has taught me to believe that personality clashes are often the result of mismatched communication styles and less of genuine differences in personalities. Our Barcelona office and Munich office do constantly bump heads even on joint projects: the German team think that the Spanish team is chaotic and unorganized, the Spanish team think that the Germans are inflexible and do not take any creative solutions into account. As an alternative to discussing personalities, I provided "working style cards" that let everyone explain how they wanted to communicate, make decisions, and receive feedback. Our Munich operations manager realized that his 'no-nonsense' style led him only hindrance in Germany, where everyone wanted to get to know him before receiving constructive feedback. In the case of the Barcelona team, conversely, they acknowledged that their brainstorming meetings looked like chaos to those who needed an ordered agenda in order to contribute effectively. The change in team chemistry was instantaneous. As team members developed a common understanding of how to work together, project completion times dropped. Starting even before business began, the German team was organising informal coffee chats in the lead-up to business being discussed, while the Spanish team began providing meeting notes formally structured in advance. The success recipe had nothing to do with changing characters but with creating comprehension between different approaches. Such questionnaires are now issued to every new member of the team and the information is shared openly. Tensions generally tend to ease when people understand the rationale for difference methods.
'Encourage shadowing to allow team members to understand the importance of the other team member's task' One of the problems we usually face is tension between data teams and AI product teams. More often than not, the data team feels like it is being asked for impossible last-minute feature pivots, without even taking into account the time and effort they've spent on previous directions. Whereas the product team feels like the data team is blocking innovation and not focusing on the end goal. Instead of focusing on trying to get them to align, we suggested that the data team join product stand ups to understand where the shift in priorities was coming from in real time and gain context to the pivot requests. We also suggested that the product lead join QA sessions to see the chaos that happens of unplanned changes and how much time and effort goes into execution as well as fixing existing work to changes that occur all of a sudden. By doing so, the teams understood what was happening on the other side, the weight of their requests and had more understanding trying to minimize the damage or shifts whenever possible.
Cohesion at Alloy Market is fueled by clarity. Our business necessitates both operational accuracy and a high degree of client trust because we developed a digital platform for the exchange of precious metals. I don't concentrate on personality resolution when team members disagree. I concentrate on clearly stating the goal, delegating responsibility, and setting clear expectations. The product lead advocated for a quicker, more automated experience during a revamp of our intake process in order to lower user friction. Operations, however, desired further measures to guarantee that each physical item received was monitored and confirmed in real time. Although both were working for the company, the dispute prevented things from moving forward for more than a week. I stepped in and made the outcome clear: we needed a faster process that did not compromise accuracy. I then made ownership clear. Product would own the user experience and automation. Operations would own risk mitigation and compliance. They were given shared accountability to deliver a single integrated plan that met both standards. They delivered a hybrid system that reduced turnaround time while adding a verification layer behind the scenes. The outcome was better than either original proposal. This method works because it shifts focus from personalities to responsibilities. In a small team where decisions move fast and risks are real, alignment comes from structure, not consensus.
I don't rush to resolve conflicts. Different personalities mean varying opinions and emotions. I am not fast to resolve conflict until I understand what is driving it. Is it fear, frustration, ego, insecurity or a difference in how they express ideas? Are they scared to lose their job, or do they have previous trauma? I first pay attention to what they may be communicating. In February, our senior sysadmin and a product lead were constantly butting heads over server load-balancing. The product guy wanted fast deployment. On the other hand, the sysadmin kept pushing back on reliability concerns. Eventually, it escalated and got personal through passive-aggressive comments in Jira, at which point they were reported. I sat each of them down to understand what was going on. The sysadmin mentioned he took the fall for a major outage in his previous company. He was terrified of allowing changes too quickly. The product lead was the last to join the team and under pressure to showcase his skills. He thought the system admin dismissed his ideas because his role wasn't technical enough. After hearing them both, we sat down to discuss the miscommunication. We came up with a solution, a partial rollout with performance monitoring. If I rushed to solve the conflict, I would have told them what to do and led to both of them being dissatisfied. Try to understand the conflict before you rush to solve it. Over time, everyone will feel seen. They will respect each other and enjoy being teammates, building cohesion.
We are a sum total of all our life experiences, cultural upbringing, belief systems and individual values. From these, we each have our own unique way of navigating the world, and it impacts how we show up in a team. When there is conflict within the team, I look at the underlying cause, not the action. What deep need is not being met? I have seen conflict arise, as employers are wanting their teams to return to the office, post COVID. After 5 years of working from home, many employees are not happy with this change. Here, I look at the need of the staff. What is it that they are truly wanting? Flexibility to put the washing on as the kettle boils? Ability to pick their child up from school, and then continue working once they are home? Or maybe they just don't cope well with change. I then work with the team to find a solution that fulfils their need, while also fulfilling the employer's need. For example, adjusting work start and end times. Or having 1 day a week working from home to catchup on chores during their lunch breaks. I have found that approaching issues from this angle, quickly settles any conflict, and makes my team feel heard and valued.
Sales & Marketing Specialist | Event Marketing & Planning Specialist| Co-Founder & CSO at Tradefest.io
Answered 2 months ago
We reframed a potential stand-off between our data-driven Head of Analytics and our creative Lead Designer into one of the best partnerships on the team not by enforcing an answer but an opportunity for growth. I chose not to mediate a solution as their friction between dashboard designs (the analyst wanted everything crammed in; the designer favored more minimalist visualizations) began to slow down releases. Instead, privately, I asked them each: 'What is one thing your counterpart brings to this project that you do not?' The analyst confessed that the intuitive layouts of the designer pushed up user engagement in tests while the designer confirmed that the complex data sets actually cut down on customer service queries. Forced harmony backfires. However, guiding the arguments of opposing personalities to articulate one another's value is what makes conflict a powerful tool for innovation.