Learn the three-part formula to transform workplace conflict.

If You Can Name It
You Can Tame It

A Field Guide to Defusing Workplace Conflict

Picture this—a cross-functional team of fisheries biologists, hydrologists, and habitat specialists sitting around a conference table, the week before a high-profile public hearing. They're to deliver consensus recommendations to a panel of policymakers on a contentious water allocation issue—with news media in attendance. 

Instead, they're stuck in their fifth of six meetings arguing about whether the coho salmon data from 2019 is robust enough to support flow recommendations. Somehow, despite everyone's expertise and good intentions, the team has devolved into a positional argument over whose interpretation of that year's data is correct. The public hearing approaches. The deadline looms. And the message this group of experts is about to deliver is very visible: "We couldn't agree."

If you've spent any time in natural resource management, you've either witnessed this scenario or lived it. The request for advice, the pressure to perform, and the consequences of failure go together. And the consequences are real: damaged credibility with decision-makers, strained relationships with colleagues, and that gnawing feeling that you let everyone down—including the resource you're supposed to be protecting.

Here's the good news: this situation is manageable. Controllable, even. But it requires a specific conflict resolution skill that most of us were never taught in graduate school—the ability to name what's actually happening in the room and then do something productive with it. Master this skill, and you become the person who rescues meetings, builds your reputation, and actually goes home at a reasonable hour instead of cycling through another contentious email thread at 10 PM.

---

 A Three-Part Formula to Fix this Problem

Conflict Resolution = Recognition + Interests + Golden Question

Before we break down each component, understand what you're doing with this formula: you're helping a group of smart, well-intentioned professionals get out of their own way. They're just stuck in a pattern that feels like productive debate but is actually destructive conflict. This formula breaks that pattern. It's that simple.

Why Naming Works

When tensions rise, the instinct is to either power through the discomfort or avoid it entirely. We think if we just stay focused on "the work," the conflict will resolve itself. It won't.

Here's what psychology tells us: Emotional arousal narrows our cognitive focus. When people feel threatened or frustrated, their brains literally shift into a defensive mode where they're processing information through a fight-or-flight lens rather than a collaborative problem-solving one. Neuroscientist Dan Siegel calls this "flipping your lid"—when the prefrontal cortex (responsible for rational thought) temporarily loses its influence over the amygdala (the emotional alarm system) (Siegel, 2012, The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are, 2nd ed., Guilford Press).

The act of naming what's happening—acknowledging the conflict explicitly and in neutral terms—does something neurologically important: it activates the brain's language centers, which helps re-engage the prefrontal cortex. Research in affect labeling shows that simply putting feelings into words reduces emotional intensity. You literally calm the amygdala by naming what it's reacting to (Lieberman et al., 2007, "Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli," Psychological Science, 18(5), 421-428).

But here's the critical part: it's not enough to just point out that there's conflict. You need to name it correctly. You need to name the underlying Interests, not the Issues.

Issues vs. Interests: The Difference That Matters

Issues are what people say they want—their demands, proposals, or positions. Issues are the surface-level statements that sound like solutions but are actually just opening bids in a negotiation to address what the speaker "wants."

Common Issues in natural resource workplace conflicts include:

• "We must hire another biologist."
• "We should use the 2019 dataset, not the 2022 data."
• "This project must have a full scientific review before we act."
• "We can't move forward until we have better water quality monitoring in place."

When the conversation stays focused on Issues, you get predictable results: right vs. wrong debates where people defend their positions and attack others' points of view. It's intellectual trench warfare—great for advancing scientific knowledge, not so great for developing consensus scientific advice.

Interests are why people want their Issues addressed—the underlying needs, values, worries, or goals driving their positions. Interests are the reasons people take a position on the Issues. It's what the speaker "needs" and hopes their position on the Issues will provide.

Common Interests underlying those same conflicts could be:

• Workload sustainability (behind "hire another biologist")
• Scientific credibility and professional reputation (behind the dataset debate)
• Discomfort with uncertainty (behind "full scientific review")
• Confidence in decision-making (behind "better monitoring")

See the difference?

Issues are the "What" of a dispute. Interests are the "Why" those Whats matter.

When you name Interests, you expose the real needs, and in doing that, you open the door that leads to resolution. When people discuss their Interests, they tend to identify core concerns that, if addressed, allow them to let go of their rigid positions on the Issues.

How to Actually Do This

The key is to name the underlying Interests rather than simply paraphrasing the Issues back at people.

Instead of this: "It seems like there's disagreement about whether to use the 2019 or 2022 dataset" (naming the Issue).

Try this: "It sounds like some of us are concerned about the scientific credibility of our recommendations, while others are worried about having robust enough data to meet the decision timeline. Both of those are legitimate concerns" (naming the Interests).

See what happened? The conflict shifted from opposing positions (2019 vs. 2022) into shared concerns (credibility and meeting the deadline) to be addressed together. Nobody has to be wrong. Both Interests can be simultaneously valid.

Here's what this looks like in real time. When you notice rising tension in a meeting, pause and neutrally point out what you observe:

"I'm noticing some strong feelings about this approach. It seems like we have some important concerns on the table—can we take a moment to identify what matters most to each of us about using or not using these data?"

Then listen for the Interests beneath the Issues, and say them back to your team:

"So, on one hand, there's a need to make sure our scientific credibility doesn't suffer. On the other hand, there's concern about deciding so we can meet the deadline. What's an approach that can accommodate both?"

This reframing is powerful because it makes the problem a shared focus rather than a you vs. me debate. You've changed the discussion from people fighting each other to people fighting the problem together.

You're Not Done Yet: The Golden Question

Now here's where it gets interesting. Once you've named the Interests, you need to move the conversation forward with an action step. This is where most facilitations stall out—people nod along, agree that yes, those are the concerns, and then... nothing changes because they continue to debate about who is right instead of problem-solving on doing the best you can with what you have.

You need to ask the Golden Question—gold because it's an extremely valuable asset for nudging the conversation from conflict to resolution.

The formal version: "What would need to happen so that [Interest A] is addressed in a way that also works for [Interest B]?"

Or, in everyday language: "What do you most want to see happen that will work for you so you can get [your Interest] met in a way that will also work to meet [the other person's Interest]?"

This question does something crucial: it shifts people from a past orientation (where the complaints live) to a future orientation (where solutions live). It transforms positional statements into shared problem-solving opportunities. It forces creative thinking instead of defensive argumentation.

Back to our dataset debate:

"What would need to happen so we can maintain scientific credibility while also meeting our decision timeline with the available data we have?"

Suddenly, you're not arguing about 2019 vs. 2022. You're problem-solving together about how to meet both needs. Maybe that means using the 2019 data, but being explicit about limitations in the report. Maybe it means a phased approach. Maybe it means a with-and-without comparison. Maybe it means something nobody has thought of yet because they've been too busy defending their positions.

The Golden Question unlocks creative solutions by getting people unstuck from their positions on the Issues and focused on getting their needs met by addressing their underlying Interests.

Putting It All Together

So, here's your formula for managing conflict when it shows up:

Conflict Resolution = Recognition + Interests + Golden Question

1. Recognize it when it's happening. Don't pretend the tension isn't there.
2. Name the Interests driving the argument over the Issues. Dig beneath what people are saying (Issues) to why it matters to them (Interests).
3. Ask the Golden Question to shift from past-focused complaints to future-focused problem-solving.

And it all begins with: If you can name it, you can tame it.

The payoff? You walk out of that contentious meeting with a consensus recommendation instead of an embarrassing admission of failure. You build a reputation as the person who can navigate tough conversations and deliver results. Decision-makers increase their trust because they get consistent, actionable advice. And you spend less time managing interpersonal drama that gets in the way of decision-making.

That dataset debate you were stuck in? It gets resolved by the deadline. The public hearing? Your team shows up unified, confident, and prepared. Your professional reputation? Enhanced.

All because you could Name It To Tame It!

---

What workplace conflicts are you facing that could benefit from naming the underlying Interests? Hit reply and let me know—I read every response.

---

Free Consultation - Just Ask!

I offer free consultations on conflict, facilitation, difficult meetings, public involvement, online meetings, and collaboration in general. Schedule an opportunity to talk with me about your issue. I promise not to trap you into a marketing message. We will stick to problem-solving on your issue.

Click for Appointment.

Email Mike