Conflict Resolution Questions to Ask
These are questions to ask when dealing with conflict at work or at home, worded for one of the two people in it; a manager or mediator sitting between them can put the same ones to each side. The 55 run in the order the conversation goes: what to ask yourself before you speak, hearing the other side and what sits underneath it, then options and an agreement on paper. The last group is for whoever is leading a team through conflict, whether that is a department, a group of volunteers or a ministry team.
Want questions from the whole vault instead? Try the random question generator.
The questions
Each question, and why to ask it
Before you talk
What exactly happened, in words the other person would agree with?
Why ask it
Write the event down without adjectives: who said or did what, and when. If you cannot produce a version they would put their name to, you are still holding an interpretation, and opening with it restarts the argument at the description.
What do I want out of this conversation: an apology, a change, or to be heard?
Why ask it
These three call for different conversations, and it is common to walk in wanting all of them at once. Pick the one you would settle for. Asking for a change while really wanting an apology leaves you unsatisfied even when the change arrives.
What story am I telling myself about why they did it?
Why ask it
You know what they did; the why is a guess you have been treating as a fact. Put the guess into one sentence, then think of two other explanations that fit the same events, so you arrive curious instead of certain.
What part of this is mine?
Why ask it
There is nearly always something: a message left unanswered, a sigh in a meeting, a complaint taken to a third person first. Finding it beforehand lets you offer it early, which costs far less than having it pointed out halfway through.
Is this worth raising, or will it have stopped mattering in a month?
Why ask it
A fair test is whether you have replayed it more than twice, or changed how you act around the person. If either is true it will not fade by itself, and leaving it means it comes out later attached to something much smaller.
Am I taking this to the person who can actually change it?
Why ask it
Complaints tend to travel sideways, to whoever is easiest to tell. If the one who can change things is not the one you are planning to talk to, you are about to recruit an ally, and the dispute will still be there afterwards.
Is this a disagreement to talk through, or something I should report instead?
Why ask it
Harassment, threats, discrimination and anything that leaves you feeling unsafe are not matters to settle in a private chat with the person responsible. Who takes a report, and what happens after one, differs by employer, school and country, so look up how it works where you are before deciding.
What am I afraid will happen if I bring it up?
Why ask it
Name the specific fear: being called oversensitive, a frosty few weeks, a mark against you at review time. A named fear can be planned for, and set beside the cost of carrying on in silence it often looks smaller than it felt.
Their side
Is now a good time to talk about what happened between us, or would later suit you better?
Why ask it
The first thing you say to the other person should hand them a choice. Someone cornered at their desk defends themselves, while someone who picked the hour has already agreed to have the conversation. Name the subject as well (Thursday's meeting, the message about the rota), so they are not left guessing all afternoon.
Can you tell me how you saw it, start to finish, and I will not interrupt?
Why ask it
The promise not to interrupt is what makes this work, so keep it even when you hear something wrong. People who have been cut off before will race through their account; the details they slow down on are the ones that still sting.
Which part of this is bothering you most?
Why ask it
Disputes arrive as a bundle of grievances, and the loudest is rarely the heaviest. Asking for the ranking often reveals that the substantive issue matters less than being told about the decision after everyone else.
When did this start for you?
Why ask it
The trigger event you are dealing with is often not where the other person's clock started. If the answer reaches back weeks or months, you are working on a pattern, and fixing only the latest incident will not settle anything.
What did you think I meant by it?
Why ask it
The words are seldom the injury; what they were taken to mean is. Expect to hear a motive you did not have, and correct that without disputing that it landed the way it did.
What was that like for you at the time?
Why ask it
The account so far has probably been events. This asks for the effect, which is the part people most want acknowledged: embarrassed before the team, shut out, not trusted. You can accept that it felt that way without agreeing with their reading of your intent.
What do you wish I had done instead?
Why ask it
It is a kinder way of asking what they would have done in your place, and it gets a more practical answer. Often the wish is small: a heads-up the day before, a word in private and not in the meeting. Hear it as information about next time, since nobody can go back and do it.
Can I say back what I heard, and you tell me what I missed?
Why ask it
Use their words, not a tidied version, and stop before you add your reply. The corrections are the valuable part: whatever they fix first is the point they most needed you to get. A flat "no, that is it" from someone still tense may mean they do not yet trust the conversation, so slow down before moving on.
Is there anything you have been holding back because you are not sure how I will take it?
Why ask it
Ask it near the end of their account, and mean it. What comes out is likely to be the hardest thing to hear in the whole conversation, so thank them before you respond, or it will be the last frank thing they tell you.
Underneath
What do you need that you are not getting right now?
Why ask it
A position is a demand, and the need behind it is usually simpler: notice, credit, predictability, a say in the decision, being told first. A need can often be met in more than one way, and people rarely state theirs unless asked directly.
What matters to you here that you think I have not noticed?
Why ask it
The answer tends to be a principle and not a request: fairness, loyalty to a colleague, pride in doing the job properly. Once it has been said aloud, you can often honour it by a different route than the one they first demanded.
What is the worst version of how this ends, from where you sit?
Why ask it
Fear often drives more of the behaviour than the stated issue does: losing the project, being managed out, being blamed for someone else's decision. Once it is named you can sometimes deal with it directly, and now and then that turns out to be the whole resolution.
What do you think I want out of this?
Why ask it
Their answer shows you the opponent they have been arguing with, who is rarely you. If they say you want to win, or to get them into trouble, correct that before anything else, because no proposal sounds reasonable from someone believed to be after that.
Have you been through something like this before, and how did it end?
Why ask it
Curiosity is the only tone that works here, because the same words can sound like a hint that they are the common factor. Someone whose last manager took the credit, or whose earlier complaint went nowhere, is expecting the same ending now. You are not there to dig into the old story, only to learn what you would have to do differently for this one to end another way.
What have I done that made this harder?
Why ask it
Ask it, then stay quiet, and do not follow the answer with a defence. Watching you take one small criticism without arguing is often what lets the other person admit something of their own. They may also name a thing that never made your own list.
What would you need to hear from me to believe I have understood?
Why ask it
Some people need the words "I was wrong about that", some need the facts repeated accurately, and some want nothing said and a change they can see. Asking saves you from delivering a heartfelt version of the wrong thing.
Is there a part of this that is not really about the two of us?
Why ask it
Workload, a reorganisation, money worries at home or a boss who plays favourites can each set two people against one another. If the pressure is coming from outside, say so together: you may do better as allies against it than as opponents.
Finding a way
Which parts of this do we already agree on?
Why ask it
The list is often longer than either of you expected: the deadline matters, the customer should not notice, nobody wants to keep having this conversation. Say the overlap out loud early, so there is something to go back to when the hard part stalls.
If this went well, what would be different by Monday morning?
Why ask it
A date forces the answer down from principle to something you could watch happen. If nothing concrete comes, the person may want an apology or an acknowledgement and not a change, and it is better to say so than to design a process around it.
What are three ways we could handle this, including ones neither of us likes yet?
Why ask it
Two options become a contest between yours and mine. A third, even a poor one, breaks that up, and asking for unliked ideas lets people float things without being held to them. Get all of them on paper before anyone comments.
What can you live with here, and what can you really not accept?
Why ask it
Preferences and limits sound the same until someone is asked to sort them. A list where everything is non-negotiable more likely means the person is braced for a fight than that all of it matters equally, so ask which single item they would keep if they could keep only one.
If we did it your way, what do you think it would cost me?
Why ask it
Describing the other person's loss is harder to dodge than a request to compromise. Answer the mirror question yourself as well: if you cannot say what your preferred outcome would cost them, you have not understood their position yet, and a deal struck on that footing is likely to be resented.
What could I offer that would cost me little and matter a lot to you?
Why ask it
People value different things, and that is where trades come from: one wants to make the call and the other wants to be consulted, or one wants the quiet desk and the other the earlier shift. Ask it in both directions before you start splitting everything down the middle.
What is the smallest change that would make this bearable for now?
Why ask it
Keep this one for the day a full settlement is out of reach. A meeting moved, a copy on an email, one task reassigned: a change that size lowers the temperature and buys time. If even that is refused, you have learned how far apart you still are.
Who else is affected by how we settle this?
Why ask it
Two people in a room can readily agree something that lands badly on a third. Naming everyone touched by the fix also reveals whether one of you has been fighting on someone else's behalf without saying so.
Should we stop here and pick this up tomorrow?
Why ask it
A pause is a tool, not a defeat. Once voices have risen, or one of you has gone quiet and flat, anything agreed in the next ten minutes is unlikely to hold. Fix the time you will resume before you part, or the break turns into avoidance.
Would it help to bring someone else in, and what would their job be?
Why ask it
Three times round the same point is a fair signal to ask this. The someone could be a manager, a colleague or relative you both trust, an HR partner or a trained mediator, depending on what is available to you. Settle their role before they arrive: to listen, to advise or to decide.
How should we decide if we still disagree after all this?
Why ask it
A tie-break agreed before you need it takes some of the threat out of the discussion. It might be a manager's call, a written policy, a coin toss for something trivial, or agreeing to differ. Leave it open and the unresolved point tends to turn into the next argument.
The agreement
What do you want things between us to look like once this is settled?
Why ask it
Some people want the warmth back and some only want to get through the working day, or the school run, without friction. Either can work. Pressing friendliness on someone who asked for distance can undo a settlement that looked finished, so ask before you assume.
What is one thing each of us will do differently, starting tomorrow?
Why ask it
Two specific commitments, one each, beat a page of principles. If either side's commitment is a feeling rather than an action, keep going: "be more collaborative" cannot be checked, whereas "send the draft before the meeting" can.
Can we write down what we have agreed, in words we would both sign?
Why ask it
The drafting is the test. If one sentence takes four attempts, the agreement was not as complete as it felt, and it is far better to discover that with both of you still at the table than a week later from two different memories.
What will we do the first time one of us slips?
Why ask it
Someone will, most likely out of habit and not malice. Agree the signal now: a quiet word the same day, a one-line message, a phrase that means "this is the thing we talked about". Without one, the first slip gets read as proof that nothing changed.
Who needs to know what we agreed, and what will we tell them?
Why ask it
Colleagues or family who watched the argument will notice the change and fill the gap with guesses. Settle one short line you will both use, and agree what stays between the two of you, so neither hears their private words repeated in the kitchen.
Is there an apology either of us wants to give or needs to hear?
Why ask it
Leave it until the practical side is settled, so it does not feel like the price of entry. An apology that names the specific act lands, and "sorry if you were upset" does not. If none is offered, let it go: one given under pressure is worth nothing to either of you.
How would you like me to raise it the next time something bothers me?
Why ask it
This dispute will not be the last thing the two of you disagree on. One person wants it said the same day and face to face, another needs a message first and an hour to think. Trade answers, and the next disagreement starts with a method you both chose.
When shall we check whether this actually worked?
Why ask it
Set a date in the calendar before you leave the room, ideally two or three weeks out. It makes the agreement reviewable rather than final, which lowers the stakes now, and it means a return of the problem gets raised rather than tolerated.
Leading a team
Is this between two people, or has the whole team taken sides?
Why ask it
Ask yourself first, then test your answer in private conversations. Two people can be helped quietly. A split team needs the subject raised with everyone, because by then each member is carrying a version of events they heard second hand.
Am I neutral enough to lead this, or am I one of the sides?
Why ask it
A leader who made the disputed decision, or who is close to one of the people involved, will struggle to be heard as even-handed however fair they try to be. If that is you, tell the team so and ask someone both sides accept to chair: a peer from another department, a board member, an elder or an outside facilitator.
Have I heard each person on their own before bringing everyone together?
Why ask it
A group meeting called cold rewards the loudest account. Seeing people one at a time, with the same opening question for each, shows you where the stories part company and whether anyone would feel unsafe speaking in front of the others.
Is the disagreement about what we are here to do, or about how we do it?
Why ask it
An argument over method (the rota, a budget line, the order of service, who runs rehearsal) can be ended by a decision. An argument over purpose cannot, and a team whose members no longer agree what it is for, paid or volunteer, needs that conversation before any other.
Whose decision is this, and does everyone on the team know that?
Why ask it
Team conflict often comes down to two people each believing a call was theirs to make. If you as the leader cannot say whose it was, the fight is partly your doing, and stating the answer plainly may end it without anyone having to back down.
What has this been costing the rest of the team?
Why ask it
Put it to the people at the centre, separately and without blame. They have often not noticed colleagues routing work around them or falling silent in meetings, and hearing it can move someone who would not shift for their own sake.
What have I allowed, or avoided, that let this grow?
Why ask it
A leader's share is usually an unclear role, a decision put off, or a remark let pass because the person who made it was hard to replace. Owning it in front of the team before you ask anything of them changes the tone of what follows.
What do we agree not to do while we work this out?
Why ask it
These are rules for the meantime: no discussing each other with people outside the team, no group messages written in anger, no canvassing for support. On a ministry or volunteer team, whose members also share a congregation and a social life, the same rules protect the wider community.
How do we want to treat each other while we disagree, given what this team says it stands for?
Why ask it
Most teams have said somewhere what they stand for, in a company handbook, a charity's mission or a congregation's faith, and conflict is where that gets tested. If you are leading a ministry team through conflict, ask how honesty and forgiveness fit together here, so a call for unity is not used to hush a real grievance.
Does anyone outside the team need to be told, or asked for help?
Why ask it
A manager above you, a board, a senior pastor or elders may have a duty to know, and some organisations have a process you are expected to follow. Find out how it works in yours before you promise anyone that the matter will stay inside the team.
Can everyone here carry this outcome, including those who would have chosen differently?
Why ask it
Unanimity is not the target; willingness to act on the decision is. Go round the table and take each answer aloud, since silence in a group gets counted as agreement and comes back as foot-dragging. Volunteers can simply stop turning up, so a quiet "fine" from one of them deserves a second question.
Running the conversation itself
Practical guidance for the conversation itself
Setting it up
- Do not attempt this in the hour after the incident. Agree a time within a day or two instead, so both people arrive having thought rather than braced.
- If you are the third party, talk to each person alone first. People are more likely to say what they actually want with no audience, and you find out whether a joint conversation would help or make things worse.
- Book a private room and a real amount of time. Doing it standing in a corridor tells everyone how seriously it is being taken.
- Say at the start what the meeting is for and what it is not: settling how the two of you work, not deciding who was right. Name any limit up front, such as a decision that has already been made and is not up for discussion.
- Bring paper and write down what is agreed, in their words. Memories of these meetings diverge fast, and a shared note gives you both one version to go back to.
While you are in it
Say it back before you answer it
Summarise what you heard and ask whether you got it right. People find it hard to let go of a grievance until they are satisfied it has been received, and this is faster than arguing about whether they were listened to.
Ask about behaviour, not character
"What happened in the meeting on Tuesday?" can be answered. "Why are you so dismissive?" can only be denied. Keep every question attached to something a camera would have recorded.
Let the silence sit
A considered answer often comes after an uncomfortable pause. Fill the pause and you tend to get the rehearsed version. Count to five and let them think.
Separate the vent from the negotiation
Many people have to say the unfair thing before they can be reasonable. Treat the first ten minutes as letting off steam, do not litigate any of it, and only then start on what changes.
Watch the power difference
If you are the manager, or the parent, or simply the more confident talker, the other person is managing risk while you are discussing a problem. Say explicitly what will not be held against them, then go second on every difficult question.
When the conflict is inside a team you lead
Work through the Leading a team questions before you call a meeting. See each person alone, say what you are and are not going to decide, and tell the group only what it needs in order to work. On a volunteer or ministry team nobody is held by a contract, so people who feel unheard tend to leave quietly instead of arguing: check on the ones who have gone silent.
What derails these conversations
Trying to establish who was right
Both accounts are usually accurate about what each person experienced. Time spent adjudicating history is time not spent on what happens next, and it hardens both positions on the way.
"Let us just move on"
Offered early, this reads as a request to drop it, and an issue that was dropped instead of settled tends to come back. Move on after the specific commitments exist, not before.
Stacking grievances
Once one complaint is settled, resist adding three more from last year. If there is a pattern, name it as a pattern in one sentence and deal with it as its own conversation, rather than reopening every instance.
Solving it for them
A fix you impose gets complied with, not kept. An arrangement that one of them had no hand in designing is the first to be dropped in the week it becomes inconvenient.
Missing where it stops being a disagreement
Harassment, discrimination, threats, safety issues and anything unlawful are not conflicts to mediate. Stop the process, say plainly why, and route it to whoever is responsible for that, such as HR, a safeguarding lead or a lawyer. Who that is, and what they must then do, depends on the organisation and the country, so check the policy where you are.
Afterwards, and when it does not work
In the next twenty-four hours
- 1Send everyone who was in the room the same short note: what was agreed, who does what, and the review date. No characterisation of who conceded.
- 2Do your own commitment first and visibly. The other person is watching whether the agreement is real before they invest in it.
- 3Tell anyone affected only what they need to know about the outcome, and nothing about the content. Detail that leaks is a common way for these agreements to come apart.
- 4Keep the review date even if things look fine. Cancelling it signals the matter is closed, which makes raising a relapse feel like starting a new fight.
If one person will not engage
You cannot mediate with someone who does not want to be in the room. Move to what you can set unilaterally: how work is handed over, what goes in writing, which meetings each of you attends. State it plainly, without making it a punishment.
If it comes back a third time
Two attempts and a relapse often mean the problem is structural and not personal: overlapping responsibilities, an unclear decision right, a workload that cannot be met. Change the structure, or escalate it to whoever can, and stop asking the two people to be nicer about an impossible arrangement.