Conflict to Conversation — With an Added Bonus
What happens when people discover that the person they’re fighting isn’t wrong; they’re just different?
Conflict inside teams is expensive.
It consumes time.
Distracts people.
Damages relationships.
Slows decisions.
And, if allowed to continue, can divide entire departments.
But sometimes the apparent cause of the conflict isn’t the real cause at all.
Two people can be equally capable, equally committed and equally convinced they’re doing the right thing — while approaching the same situation in completely different ways.
One of the earliest organisations to use Perfect Teams® gave us a wonderful example.
It started with conflict.
It ended with conversation.
And, unexpectedly, it helped uncover something else too.
SALES VERSUS DELIVERY
The client was a growing technology and streaming business.
There was regular friction between two senior people:
The Head of Sales.
And the Head of Delivery.
You can probably imagine the situation.
Sales wants to win the business.
Delivery wants to make sure the business can be delivered.
Sales sees opportunity.
Delivery sees complexity.
Sales wants the headline.
Delivery needs the detail.
Neither is necessarily wrong.
In fact, the organisation needs both.
The problem begins when difference is interpreted as opposition.
CONFLICT IS INFORMATION
When two capable people repeatedly clash, our instinct is often to ask:
Who’s the problem?
That’s not always the most useful question.
A better one might be:
What is the conflict telling us?
Because conflict can reveal something about the system.
Different priorities.
Different assumptions.
Different communication styles.
Different ways of processing information.
Different responsibilities.
Different characters.
So rather than trying to decide which of these two people was right, we began by helping each understand themselves.
START WITH THE INDIVIDUAL
Perfect Teams® starts with character.
Each person completed the character indicator and began exploring how they naturally processed and communicated information.
The difference between the two leaders quickly became apparent.
The Head of Sales naturally wanted the headline.
Opportunity.
Action.
Movement.
The Head of Delivery wanted the detail.
What exactly had been promised?
How would it work?
What could go wrong?
What resources would be required?
The very characteristics that made each person valuable in their own role were contributing to the conflict between them.
That’s an important distinction.
Sometimes conflict isn’t caused by weakness. It’s caused by strengths colliding.
THEN BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER
Individual awareness is useful.
But teams don’t exist individually.
So the next stage was bringing people together.
Once the two leaders could see their different communication styles, the conversation changed.
Instead of:
Why are you like this?
it could become:
Ah. That’s what you’re looking for.
And from there:
How do we communicate so that both of us get what we need?
Nothing fundamental about either person needed to change.
The Head of Sales didn’t need to become the Head of Delivery.
The Head of Delivery didn’t need to become a salesperson.
They needed the capability to translate across the difference.
FROM CONFLICT TO CONVERSATION
That’s what character understanding can do at its best.
It gives people a language for discussing difference without making the difference personal.
The progression is remarkably simple:
Difference → Friction → Understanding → Conversation → Adaptation → Capability
Conflict hasn’t necessarily disappeared forever.
Nor should disagreement disappear from capable teams.
The objective isn’t harmony at any cost.
It’s the capability to disagree productively.
Because a team in which nobody disagrees isn’t necessarily a strong team.
It may simply be a team in which nobody challenges.
“THIS IS HOW TO TALK TO ME”
One of the smaller moments from those workshops has stayed with me.
A member of the team printed a summary of her preferred communication style and put it beside her desk.
She knew she was direct.
She wanted logical information.
And when conversations began going astray, she could point towards it as a reminder of how best to communicate with her.
Simple?
Absolutely.
But that’s the point.
Understanding people doesn’t have to be complicated to be useful.
The value isn’t in the sophistication of the profile.
The value is in what people can do differently because they understand it.
COMMUNICATION REQUIRES TRANSLATION
We’ve encountered this principle repeatedly.
People often communicate in the way they prefer to receive information.
But the person on the other side may need something entirely different.
So:
Communication isn’t what you send. It’s what the other person can receive.
The capability lies in translation.
Can I recognise what you need?
Can I adapt without pretending to be somebody I’m not?
Can I retain my strengths while communicating in a way that allows you to use them?
That’s a human capability.
And it becomes increasingly valuable as organisations become larger and more complex.
THEN CAME THE ADDED BONUS
Resolving the communication problem wasn’t the only outcome from the work.
The organisation was also thinking about succession.
At some point, a new Managing Director would be required.
That creates a much bigger question than:
Who’s good at their current job?
The question becomes:
Who could become capable of doing the next one?
Through understanding the characters and strengths within the leadership team, a potential successor emerged.
But something equally important emerged with them.
Their development needs.
POTENTIAL ISN’T THE SAME AS READINESS
This distinction matters enormously.
Identifying somebody with leadership potential doesn’t mean they’re ready for leadership today.
Character can help us understand what somebody may naturally bring.
It can also highlight areas in which they may need to develop.
That gives an organisation something extremely valuable:
time.
Time to coach.
Time to expose somebody to different situations.
Time to increase responsibility.
Time to develop missing capabilities.
Time to surround them with complementary people.
Instead of waiting until the promotion and discovering the gaps afterwards.
Succession planning shouldn’t simply identify who comes next. It should develop their capability for what comes next.
THE SAME INSIGHT SOLVED TWO DIFFERENT PROBLEMS
That’s what makes this particular case interesting when I look back at it.
The organisation originally had a conflict problem.
Understanding character helped people communicate across their differences.
But the same understanding also helped the organisation think about future leadership.
One application addressed today’s friction.
The other helped develop tomorrow’s capability.
That’s why profiling should never be the destination.
A profile is information.
What matters is what happens next.
CHARACTER CREATES THE CONVERSATION
Perfect Teams® isn’t designed to eliminate difference.
Quite the opposite.
Difference is where much of the potential value of a team resides.
Different people see different things.
The challenge is turning those differences into complementary contribution rather than conflict.
That requires understanding.
Conversation.
Adaptation.
Respect.
And eventually:
Interdependence.
The question isn’t:
How do we stop people being different?
It’s:
How do we become capable of using the difference?
That’s the journey from conflict to conversation.
And sometimes, as this organisation discovered, the conversation reveals capabilities you didn’t even know were there.
Personality Divides. Character Unites.
You can’t download capability.™
What’s behind the conflict in your team?
Perfect Teams® helps leaders understand character, improve communication, uncover hidden capability and turn difference into greater collective strength.
Originally published 5 June 2022. Updated August 2026.
Article by: