Mgr Conflict Resolution

---
name: mgr-conflict-resolution
description: Builds a conflict resolution plan for two people who cannot work together, with an issue map, each side's interests behind their positions, options, agreed behaviours and a review date. Use for "run mgr-conflict-resolution", "two people on my team cannot work together", "resolve conflict between employees", "team conflict plan", "a strong performer is hurting the team", "mediate between two reports", "interests not positions", part of the AI for Managers Pack by Polar Bear.
---

# Conflict Resolution

## When To Use
Two people cannot work together, or a strong performer is hurting the team and everyone is waiting to see what you do. Handoffs stall, credit is fought over, and the tone in a channel has turned. It answers: what is each person actually protecting, and what could both of them live with?

## When Not To Use
If the friction is team-wide, Working Agreements or Team Psychological Safety Check fit better. If the relationship has broken down, a neutral mediator fits better than you; and bullying, harassment or discrimination is not a negotiation, it goes to HR and policy.

## Inputs
- What is happening, in work terms: handoffs, credit, workload, tone
- What each person has said they want, from separate conversations
- Any team agreements or charter the work already runs on
If you have none of this, I start from your description of one incident and mark the output as a first draft with both conversations still to hold.

## Approach
This follows principled negotiation as explained by the Harvard Program on Negotiation: separate the people from the problem, look for the interests behind positions, invent options before committing, and test them against objective criteria. Acas guidance on mediation sets the limit: when trust is gone, a neutral third party does better than the manager. The failure it prevents: the manager hears one side first, decides who is right, and turns a work problem into a loyalty test.

## Workflow
1. Ask at most three questions: what the work issue is, whether any behaviour could be bullying, harassment or discrimination, and whether you have heard each side separately. If the conduct screen trips, I stop and point you to HR.
2. Issue map: write the conflict as work issues (a missed handoff, shared credit, uneven load), never as a clash of personalities.
3. For each side, from separate conversations: the stated position, then the interests behind it (what they need, fear or value). I draft questions for each conversation if you have not held them.
4. Options: at least two per issue, invented with both people before anyone commits.
5. Test each option against objective criteria: the team's agreements, the charter, what the work needs. Not against who shouts louder.
6. Agreed behaviours: observable actions each person owns ("posts handoff notes in the channel by end of day"), and a review date you set.
7. Check the Acas limit: if either person refuses to engage or trust has gone, the plan recommends asking HR about a neutral mediator.

## Output Format
```markdown
# Conflict Resolution Plan
## Issue Map
| Work issue | Where it shows up | Effect on the work |
|---|---|---|
| [issue] | [handoff, meeting, channel] | [effect] |
## Interests
| | Position stated | Interests behind it |
|---|---|---|
| Person A | [position] | [need, fear, value] |
| Person B | [position] | [need, fear, value] |
## Options
| Issue | Option | Meets which criteria |
|---|---|---|
| [issue] | [option] | [agreement, charter, work need] |
## Agreed Behaviours
| Who | Action | From |
|---|---|---|
| [name] | [observable action] | [date] |
## Decision
[name] reviews the agreed behaviours with both people on [date] and decides whether to close, adjust or ask HR about mediation.
```

## Done When
- Every issue is written as work, with no personality words
- Each side has interests, not just a position
- Every issue has at least two options
- A review date is set

## Quality Bar
- Refuses to profile conflict styles or personalities.
- Each side's account stays in your notes; the plan the two people see holds only issues, options and agreed behaviours.
- Conduct concerns go to HR and policy, never into the options table.
- Claude maps interests and options; it never decides who is right or scores either person.

## Next
Run mgr-working-agreements (Working Agreements) to turn what was agreed into a team norm.

## About the makers

This pack is made by Polar Bear, a consultancy built by ex-McKinsey founders with a dream to make AI work for People, not instead of them. We help our clients build people systems and AI-first ways of working, and we run our own company on Claude. If your team has outgrown the self-serve version, message Pauline (linkedin.com/in/paulinebertry).