Which is the most appropriate step to resolve a conflict between two team members with personal differences affecting work?

Which is the most appropriate step to resolve a conflict between two team members with personal differences affecting work?

• A. Publicly admonish both team members to deter future conflicts.
• B. Ignore the issue and hope it resolves itself.
• C. Move one member to another team to avoid conflict.
• D. Schedule a confidential, structured mediation with clear goals, documented actions, and involve a supervisor if needed.

Answer: (D)

Managing conflict effectively hinges on handling it through a confidential, structured mediation that has clear goals, a plan for actions, and, if needed, supervisor involvement. This approach creates a safe space where both teammates can voice concerns without fear of humiliation, reducing defensiveness and preserving trust. It focuses on work outcomes and observable behaviors rather than personal accusations, helping to realign expectations and restore productive collaboration. A neutral mediator guides the conversation, sets ground rules, and ensures equal participation, which helps uncover underlying interests and agreement on concrete, measurable steps. Documenting the actions and timelines provides accountability and a reference for follow-up to ensure progress. Escalation to a supervisor is appropriate if the issue persists, escalates, or involves policy or safety considerations, ensuring support and formal oversight. Public admonishment, ignoring the issue, or simply moving one person to another team avoid addressing the root causes and can damage morale, trust, and long-term performance.

Managing conflict effectively hinges on handling it through a confidential, structured mediation that has clear goals, a plan for actions, and, if needed, supervisor involvement. This approach creates a safe space where both teammates can voice concerns without fear of humiliation, reducing defensiveness and preserving trust. It focuses on work outcomes and observable behaviors rather than personal accusations, helping to realign expectations and restore productive collaboration. A neutral mediator guides the conversation, sets ground rules, and ensures equal participation, which helps uncover underlying interests and agreement on concrete, measurable steps. Documenting the actions and timelines provides accountability and a reference for follow-up to ensure progress. Escalation to a supervisor is appropriate if the issue persists, escalates, or involves policy or safety considerations, ensuring support and formal oversight. Public admonishment, ignoring the issue, or simply moving one person to another team avoid addressing the root causes and can damage morale, trust, and long-term performance.