Conflict Resolution Worksheet

Your client had a significant public conflict with a peer in a leadership meeting two days ago. In coaching, they have described what happened in detail - all of it from their own perspective, all of it locating the cause with the peer. They have a plausible account. They also have a history of similar conflicts with similar accounts. This is the third time in eighteen months that a peer relationship has broken down publicly. Your client does not see the pattern. They are looking for help with the current situation, not for an examination of their role in it.

Frame this as a structured account rather than a judgment exercise. 'Before you decide what to do next, let's get the situation on paper the way the worksheet structures it - facts only in the first section, then both perspectives, then your contribution. The contribution section is not about blame, it is about what levers you actually have going forward.' The resistance pattern to name: clients who process conflict by externalizing blame often feel that examining their own role is equivalent to saying the other person was right. Name explicitly that those are two separate questions, and that naming your own contribution is a strategy question, not a moral one.

Watch the Situation section first. If it contains interpretive language in what should be a factual account - 'he tried to undermine me,' 'she was clearly threatened' - the worksheet's fact/interpretation separation has not been applied. Work through stripping the interpretations before moving forward. Also watch the 'Their likely perspective' column. Clients who externalize conflict tend to write thin, dismissive content in that column - 'she probably thinks she's right about everything.' If that column is sparse, the perspective-taking has not been done and the Resolution Path that follows will be one-sided.

Start with the 'My Role' section. Ask your client to read it aloud and then ask: 'Is that the full picture of what you brought to this?' That question often surfaces additional contribution that was not written down. Then look at the 'Their likely perspective' column together. Ask: 'If a neutral observer described this situation from their side, what would they add to what you wrote?' The opening statement in the Resolution Path should reflect some acknowledgment of the other perspective - if it reads purely as a statement of your client's grievance, it is not ready.

Your client has a conflict with a direct report they have already decided how to handle. They arrived at the session with a plan: they will call a meeting, state the problem, give the direct report a chance to respond, and then close with what they need going forward. The plan is not unreasonable. It is also entirely based on their own perspective, was constructed without any attempt to understand the direct report's account of the same events, and will likely produce a defensive reaction. They are asking for help with delivery, not with preparation.

Frame the worksheet as a pre-conversation check rather than new preparation. 'You have done a lot of the preparation already. What the worksheet adds is a quick check on the sections that are typically most vulnerable - specifically the other perspective and your own role in the situation. Those two sections often change the opening statement.' The resistance pattern: clients who have invested mental energy in a plan often experience adding structure as criticism of the plan they made. Name that the purpose is not to redo their thinking, it is to stress-test the current plan against the two most common places plans fail.

Watch the 'Their likely perspective' column especially. Clients who have already scripted a conflict conversation often write a version of the other person's perspective that validates their own framing - 'they probably know they've been underperforming but are hoping to avoid consequences.' That is a perspective compatible with their script, not a genuine reconstruction of the direct report's account. A genuinely worked perspective should produce at least one surprise or discomfort. If it does not, it has not been worked.

Read the opening statement your client has drafted alongside the 'Their likely perspective' column. Ask: 'If you opened this way, what would this person's first reaction likely be - and have you addressed that reaction anywhere in your plan?' That question often surfaces the gap between how the conversation will open and how it will actually land. Then ask: 'What is the one piece of this situation where you contributed to it - even partially - that you have not yet named to this person?' The answer to that question often becomes the most important line of the opening.

Your client is in conflict with their skip-level manager - someone two levels above them who has been publicly dismissive of their work in executive meetings. Your client has no direct relationship with this person and no easy path to a one-on-one. The worksheet's 'Resolution Path' section assumes a conversation is possible; in this situation, the access does not exist in the short term. Your client needs to process what happened, understand their own role, and make decisions about what to do - but they need the structure of the worksheet to do that clearly, even if the conversation itself cannot happen immediately.

Frame the worksheet as processing infrastructure rather than conversation preparation. 'Even if the conversation isn't possible right now, getting this situation on paper clearly will help you decide what you actually want - whether that's finding a path to address it directly, or deciding how to carry it strategically without escalating. The structure helps you see what you're working with before you decide.' The resistance pattern: clients in powerless-feeling conflict situations sometimes resist a structured approach because it feels like it should produce an action they cannot take. Name that clarity about the situation is itself a useful outcome, independent of what action follows.

Watch the 'Their likely perspective' column for the skip-level. Clients in hierarchical conflicts often either demonize the senior leader ('they are out to get me') or excessively rationalize their behavior ('they probably just don't know how their words land'). Both extremes are defenses. A worked perspective produces something specific: 'In their position, with the pressure they are under, what is the most likely thing this behavior is serving?' Also watch the 'My Role' section - it is often the hardest to write honestly in a conflict where the power imbalance feels unfair.

After the worksheet is complete, ask: 'What are your actual options, and what does the worksheet tell you about which one is most likely to produce what you want?' This reframes the session from processing to decision-making. The three typical options in a hierarchical conflict - direct conversation through a request, raising it through an intermediary, or managing the relationship strategically without addressing it directly - each become more or less viable based on what the worksheet surfaces. Ask your client which path looks most viable now, and what they need to do to take it.