Recognizing the Signals of Conflict (Part 1 of 3)

Priya had tried the gentle approach. For weeks, she'd mentioned technical debt in standups. She'd sent Marcus detailed estimates showing why the timeline was impossible. She'd even pulled him aside after the sprint planning disaster two weeks ago to explain that the engineering team was burning out.

Each time, Marcus had nodded and said something about "finding efficiencies."

Now, sitting in the all-hands meeting with twenty people watching Marcus present the Q4 roadmap ahead of next week's board meeting, Priya feels something snap. The same unrealistic deadlines. The same magical thinking. And worse—Marcus is presenting her team's capacity as if those private conversations had never happened.

"This roadmap is completely unrealistic," she interrupts, her voice cutting through Marcus' presentation. "There's no way we're hitting those deadlines. Not without breaking the engineering team."

The room goes silent. Marcus' face flushes red. Three months of stakeholder meetings, careful roadmap crafting, and board preparation—and she's just blown it up in front of everyone.

If you've been in a startup—or any organization for that matter—you know this moment. The room tilts. You've crossed from disagreement into conflict.

The Critical Distinction That Changes Everything

Organizational leaders often miss the fundamental difference between disagreement and conflict—and this blindness can be costly. I've seen brilliant teams implode over conflicts that started exactly like this—moments that could have been turning points instead became breaking points.

Disagreements are about ideas and their merits. People can debate fiercely about technical approach, market strategy, or resource allocation while staying intellectually engaged. Disagreements can even energize—the clash of smart people working toward shared goals.

Conflict is different. Conflict carries emotion. The issue is no longer just the idea—it's about respect, competence, fairness, and identity. When professional worth feels threatened, the brain's threat-detection system activates. Logic takes a backseat to ego protection.

This matters because the skills that work for disagreement—data, logical arguments, cost-benefit analysis—tend to backfire in conflict. When someone feels attacked, more facts feel like more ammunition.

Why Smart People Miss the Signals

What feels like clear communication to one person sounds like an attack to another—and when these styles collide, miscommunication is almost inevitable. [See Deborah Tannen's research and the Hidden Brain podcast in the references section below.]

This is exactly what happened with Priya and Marcus. Priya's direct statement felt necessary and professional to her—she was finally speaking the truth everyone needed to hear. Marcus experienced it as public humiliation, a deliberate undermining of his authority in a high-stakes moment.

The Hidden Conversation Driving the Conflict

There's another dynamic at play: what Harvard scholar Chris Argyris called the 'left-hand column'—the gap between what we're thinking and what we actually say. [See references below for more on Argyris's work.]

In our meeting, the left-hand columns might look like this:

Priya's hidden thoughts: "Marcus keeps ignoring everything I tell him. He's going to promise the board something we can't deliver, then blame engineering when we fail. I've tried being diplomatic—screw it, someone needs to tell the truth."

Marcus' hidden thoughts: "Are you kidding me? She's sabotaging three months of work in front of the whole team. Does she want us to lose credibility with the board? I can't believe she's blindsiding me like this."

Neither person is being dishonest. Both are being incomplete. This incompleteness creates a dangerous dynamic: people respond to what they think the other person is thinking, rather than what's actually being said. The result? Conversations that spiral for no apparent reason.

A Recognition Tool: Reading the Temperature

One key to managing conflict skillfully is catching it early, before positions harden and emotions peak. Here's a simple, practical framework:

🟢 Cool Zone (Disagreement)

• Focus stays on ideas, solutions, and business outcomes

• People remain genuinely curious about other perspectives

• Questions are information-seeking: "Tell me more." "How did you arrive at that conclusion?"

• Energy feels productive, even when discussions are intense

• Humor and goodwill are still present

• People can acknowledge valid points from the other side

🟡 Warming Up (Tension Building)

• Conversations become more personal: "You always..." or "You never..."

• People repeat their points more forcefully rather than exploring new angles

• Body language shifts: crossed arms, leaning back, avoiding eye contact — Think of the CFO who starts tapping his pen impatiently when the marketing budget gets questioned, or the way people suddenly find their phones overly fascinating when certain topics come up.

• Side conversations and eye-rolls appear

• Questions become leading or accusatory: "Don't you think that's irresponsible?"

• The pace quickens—people seem in a hurry to make their point

🔴 Hot Zone (Active Conflict)

• Attacks on competence or character emerge: "That's naive" or "You clearly don't understand"

• People dig into positions rather than explore options

• Interrupting becomes frequent, or silence becomes pointed and uncomfortable — I've watched seasoned executives interrupt each other mid-sentence, and seen team meetings where the silence after someone speaks feels dangerous.

• Historical grievances surface: "Just like last quarter when you..."

• You feel the urge to "win" rather than to solve

• Allies form—people start looking to others for support rather than engaging directly

Three or more red zone indicators? You've moved into active conflict. The skills that work for disagreement will make things worse. You need a different approach.

Recognition in Action: What Actually Happened

Let's revisit Priya and Marcus' moment with this framework in mind. The temperature signals were unmistakable:

• Priya's statement directly challenged Marcus' competence ("unrealistic")

• It was public (attacking credibility in front of the team)

• It ignored the business context Marcus was managing (board pressures)

• Marcus' physical response (flushing red) showed emotional activation

• The room's silence signaled everyone sensed the shift to personal territory

Deep in the red zone.

Marcus felt his face flush. His jaw tightened. She just undermined three months of work in front of the entire team. "Priya, I appreciate your concerns," he said, his voice tight, "but we've been over this. We need to find efficiencies. And that's what this roadmap does."

"Efficiencies?" Priya's voice rose. "Marcus, I've sent you detailed estimates. I've explained why this won't work. You're not listening."

"I am listening. I'm also listening to the board's expectations and our runway. Maybe if engineering could be more flexible—"

"More flexible? We're already working sixty-hour weeks!"

The meeting ended badly. Marcus cut the discussion short, said they'd "take it offline." Three people from Priya's team thanked her for finally saying something. Two stakeholders cornered Marcus to ask if the roadmap was actually viable.

That evening, Priya drafted her resignation letter. Marcus stayed late updating his resume.

This is the typical trajectory of unrecognized conflict. Two capable professionals, both trying to do right by the company, both feeling unheard and disrespected. Neither is the villain. Both are caught in a dynamic they don't know how to change.

What Recognition Makes Possible

But here's what changes everything: recognition opens up choices you didn't know you had.

Rewind to that moment when Marcus felt his face flush. He's already established a pattern—three months of not really hearing Priya's concerns, treating them as obstacles rather than information. That pattern brought them here.

But imagine Marcus had training in recognizing conflict signals. Imagine he'd learned to notice his own physical response—the flushing face, the tightening jaw—as data rather than just emotion.

In that alternate scenario, Marcus catches himself. Something in Priya's tone tells him this isn't really about the timeline. She's been trying to tell him something for weeks. He takes a breath and makes a different choice:

"Priya, I can hear the frustration in your voice, and I know you've been raising concerns about our timeline for weeks now. Let me pause the roadmap discussion. I want to understand what you're seeing from the engineering side that I've been missing."

Notice what this version of Marcus does: he acknowledges Priya's expertise and her repeated attempts to communicate. He doesn't abandon his position—he might still need to meet board expectations—but he stops defending long enough to understand what she's actually trying to tell him.

One response like this transforms the moment. Instead of escalating the conflict, Marcus creates space for the real business issue to surface. The room relaxes because the leader is handling the tension skillfully.

And here's the thing: if Marcus had developed these skills earlier—if he'd truly listened during those three months—they likely wouldn't have reached this breaking point at all. Priya wouldn't have felt the need to "finally say something" publicly because Marcus would have already heard her privately.

Conflict recognition isn't just about managing the explosion. It's about seeing the spark before it becomes a fire.

Three Moves for Leaders

When you recognize conflict building, these three practices can shift the dynamic:

1. Check Your Intent

Before responding, ask yourself: "What is my intent here?" If you discover your goal is to punish, defend your ego, or prove you're right, you're not ready for this conversation. Reset until your intent is to understand and solve the real problem.

2. Notice the Temperature

Develop the habit of scanning for conflict signals—in yourself and others. Simply naming what you notice can create space: "I'm noticing we're getting heated about this" or "This seems to be touching something important for both of us." Recognition doesn't require perfect solutions—just acknowledgment that something bigger than the surface issue is happening.

3. Lead with Curiosity

When someone seems defensive or attacking, they're usually protecting something important to them. Get curious about what that might be: "Help me understand what's behind your concern" or "Tell me more about what you're thinking." Genuine curiosity can transform heat into information, and information gives you something to work with.

Your Practice Assignment

Before your next difficult conversation, examine your own left-hand column—those unspoken thoughts you're keeping to yourself. Is there anything true and useful you're not saying out loud, but could? Look for concerns, needs, or perspectives that might actually help move the conversation forward.

Then, during the conversation, notice when the other person might have their own unspoken thoughts driving their responses. What might they be thinking but not saying?

Coming Next: The Deeper Preparation

Recognizing the signals of conflict is crucial, but it's only the first step. In Part Two, we dive into the preparation work that happens before you enter difficult conversations. You'll learn to map the difference between positions (what people say they want) and needs (what they actually need)—drawing on negotiation expert William Ury's work and Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication (NVC) principles.

Because leadership isn't about avoiding conflict. It's about learning to enter it skillfully—for both people and the business you're building.

Additional Resources on Conflict and Productive Leadership

Key Research and Thought Leaders

• Deborah Tannen — You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (classic on conversational style and miscommunication)

• Chris Argyris — Overcoming Organizational Defenses (origin of the “left-hand column” exercise)

• Chris Holmberg — His cognitive traps: the knower trap, victim trap, and sucker’s choice (widely used in leadership development since the 1990s)

• Marshall Rosenberg — Nonviolent Communication (on human needs and conflict; featured in Part Two)

• William Ury, Roger Fisher & Bruce Patton — Getting to Yes (on positions vs. interests in negotiation)

  
  

Recommended Listening

• Hidden Brain: Relationships 2.0: How To Keep Conflict From Spiraling — A look at why conflicts escalate and how leaders can use curiosity and receptiveness to keep dialogue constructive.

• Conflict As An Opportunity: An Interview with Dana Caspersen on Conflict Management In The Workplace — emphasizes many of the concepts I mention above

---

Solve the Right Problems, Faster

If you lead a team in a growing startup or business, you know how quickly misalignment and stalled decisions can slow progress. Leadership and the Middle Path is our foundational workshop designed to build the collaborative problem-solving skills your team needs—including the conflict management capabilities covered in this series.

Battle-tested in over 150 startups and Fortune 100 companies, this practical workshop helps teams reduce friction, solve problems once (rather than repeatedly), and strengthen trust and accountability through hands-on practice and real-world application.

Join us for the next series.

For More Info  | To Register

---

Hire with Confidence. Develop with Insight.

A misaligned executive hire can cost up to three times that leader's salary. Hogan assessments bring evidence-based insight to high-stakes hiring decisions and leadership development, showing how leaders perform, collaborate, and respond under pressure.

As a certified Hogan coach, I partner with founders, boards, executive teams, and search firms to help you hire with confidence, accelerate professional growth, and avoid costly missteps.

If you want more effective hiring decisions—and stronger leaders—let’s talk.

For More Info  | Contact Russ