I don’t believe in “personality conflict.” I believe people have different personalities, temperaments, preferences, experiences, and ways of looking at the world, but I don’t believe those differences adequately explain most conflicts. When we describe a disagreement as a “personality conflict,” we are often describing how the situation feels to us rather than identifying what is actually causing the disagreement. “Personality conflict” is often an emotional interpretation of a situation rather than a purposeful examination of what is actually happening.
That distinction matters because emotions are real, but emotions are not necessarily explanations. I can be angry with someone without knowing what caused the disagreement. I can feel disrespected without knowing whether the other person intended to disrespect me. I can believe someone is difficult without understanding what we are actually disagreeing about. An adult, purposeful response doesn’t require me to deny those emotions. It requires me to recognize them without allowing them to substitute for an examination of the facts.
So how do I deal with conflict? I start by asking a different question. Instead of asking, “What’s wrong with that person?” I ask, “What are we actually in conflict about?”
I think conflict can be understood in fairly simple terms. Two or more people want something, believe they are entitled to something, or believe they need something, and they perceive that they cannot all have what they want at the same time. In other words, there is some resource, objective, decision, opportunity, or condition that appears to compete.
The resource doesn’t have to be money. It can be authority, recognition, time, territory, information, opportunity, control, status, attention, or the right to make a decision. At work, two people may want control over the same project. Two departments may want the same limited budget. Two employees may want the same promotion. A leader and an employee may disagree about who has authority to make a particular decision. A customer and an organization may want different outcomes from the same transaction.
The same principle can be seen on a much larger scale. Much of human history can be understood through competition over resources. Nations have fought over land, water, food, trade routes, wealth, political authority, and access to natural resources. The scale changes, but the underlying question remains remarkably similar: What does each party want, and can everyone have it?
That doesn’t mean every disagreement is a conflict over a genuinely scarce resource. Sometimes we manufacture scarcity. Recognition, for example, may not actually be limited. Two people can both receive credit for contributing to a successful project. Authority may not actually have to belong exclusively to one person if responsibilities can be clarified. Two people may disagree about how something should be done even though they ultimately want the same result.
That is why I am cautious about immediately calling something a “personality conflict.” Once I decide that the problem is someone’s personality, I have stopped looking for the actual issue. I have effectively converted a problem that might be solved into a characteristic of another person that I may simply have to tolerate, defeat, or complain about.
I can call someone arrogant, controlling, insensitive, lazy, aggressive, unreasonable, insecure or jealous. Those descriptions may feel accurate to me, but they don’t necessarily tell me what the conflict is about. More importantly, they don’t tell me what I can do about it.
This is where I think the idea of the “personality conflict” can become particularly destructive. Instead of dealing directly with the person and the issue, I may begin telling other people about the person’s personality. I recruit an audience. I explain why the other person is the problem. I position myself as the reasonable person and the other person as the unreasonable person. Before long, the original disagreement has become a social drama involving people who weren’t part of the original issue.
That is closely related to what is often called the drama triangle. Someone becomes the victim, someone else becomes the villain, and another person becomes the rescuer. Once the situation is framed that way, the objective can easily get lost. The question is no longer, “How do we resolve this?” It becomes, “Whose side are you on?”
I don’t find that particularly useful.
A more purposeful approach begins with separating what I feel from what I know. My emotions may tell me that something matters to me. They may tell me that I feel threatened, ignored, frustrated, angry, or disappointed. Those feelings deserve recognition, but they don’t necessarily tell me what the problem is. If I want to resolve the conflict, I have to move beyond the emotion and examine the circumstances that produced it.
That also means accepting responsibility for my own choices. If I can’t get along with someone, I have made choices about how I respond to that person. I may not have chosen the original disagreement, but I choose whether to confront it, avoid it, negotiate it, compromise, establish a boundary, change my own behavior, clarify expectations, accept the situation, end the relationship, or turn the disagreement into a personal battle.
That last choice is often overlooked. I can choose to make another person the villain in my story. I can choose to recruit other people into the conflict. I can choose to continually revisit what the other person did to me. Or I can ask a much more useful question: “What can I choose to do differently?”
That question puts responsibility back where it belongs.
When I approach conflict this way, I can use a fairly simple process. First, I identify the parties involved without assigning anyone the role of villain. Then I try to understand what each person actually wants or needs, recognizing that a stated position and an underlying interest may not be the same thing. From there, I identify the resource, decision, objective or condition that appears to be in dispute.
The next question is important: Is the resource actually finite?
Sometimes the answer is yes. There may really be only one position, one budget allocation, one promotion, one available piece of property, or one person who has final authority to make a decision. When the resource is genuinely limited, the parties may have to negotiate how it will be allocated.
But sometimes the resource isn’t finite at all. The parties may simply believe that it is. If both people can receive recognition, if responsibilities can be divided, if authority can be clarified, or if different methods can produce the same desired outcome, then what initially looked like a conflict may actually be a problem of perception or communication.
After identifying the resource, I want to separate the objective from the method. Two people can agree about what needs to happen while disagreeing about how it should happen. That isn’t necessarily a personality conflict. It may simply be a difference in judgment.
From there, I look at the choices available to each person and what each party is willing to exchange. Resolution frequently involves some form of exchange. One person gives up something in return for something else. One person changes a behavior. Another accepts a limitation. Responsibilities are clarified. Authority is established. Expectations are changed.
The goal isn’t necessarily to make everyone happy. The goal is to establish an agreement about what happens next.
And that brings me to another point about conflict resolution. You don’t have to like someone to resolve a conflict with them.
The workplace isn’t a social club. I don’t have to be friends with everyone with whom I work. I don’t have to admire someone’s personality. I don’t have to agree with someone’s preferences. I do have to find a way to work with that person when our responsibilities require us to do so.
Sometimes the most mature resolution is simply an agreement about how we will conduct ourselves going forward.
Of course, not every conflict is a misunderstanding, and not every conflict involves equal responsibility. People can lie, manipulate, intimidate, steal, abuse authority or deliberately harm other people. Some behavior requires a boundary. Some requires enforcement. Some requires the involvement of someone with legitimate authority to intervene. Recognizing that reality doesn’t invalidate the resource-based approach to conflict. It makes it even more important to identify what is actually happening.
If someone is abusing authority, for example, the issue may be authority itself. If someone is withholding information necessary for another person to do the job, information may be the resource in dispute. If someone is attempting to control another person’s choices, autonomy may be the issue. Identifying the underlying issue doesn’t excuse the behavior. It gives us a clearer way to respond to it.
I think that is ultimately what dealing with conflict requires. Instead of asking, “Who is the problem?” I can ask, “What is the conflict telling me?”
That question moves me away from personality and toward circumstances. It moves me away from blame and toward choices. It moves me away from drama and toward objectives.
I may not be able to control the other person. I may not be able to change their personality, their temperament, or their preferences. But I can control what I choose to do about the conflict.
And sometimes, that is where resolution begins.
If you have a problem you’d like to discuss in a confidential, no-obligation Zoom visit, you can self-schedule it by clicking on this button:
Use this form to be notified about new articles as I publish them!
Author’s Note: The content provided in this article is designed exclusively for educational and informational purposes, reflecting opinions shaped by decades of leadership training and organizational consulting experience. It should never be interpreted as formal professional advice. By reading or engaging with this material, you acknowledge that no professional-client relationship is established and that these insights do not substitute for tailored guidance from a qualified professional familiar with your specific circumstances. Consequently, readers are strongly advised to seek independent counsel from licensed legal, financial, medical, or other appropriate advisors before implementing any strategies or making decisions based on these perspectives. Ultimately, you assume full personal responsibility for any actions you choose to take or omit as a result of reading this material, releasing the author and publisher from any liability for outcomes arising from your reliance on the text.
Additional Reading
- Fisher, Roger, William Ury and Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.
- Thomas, Kenneth W. and Ralph H. Kilmann, Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument.
