Conflicts between colleagues are part of working life – even if no one wishes for them. They rarely escalate loudly. Far more often they creep in: a growing tension here, an avoided conversation there, until two people simply can no longer work together. At our event on 28 May 2026, we got to experience conflict training firsthand.
Perception Is Not Fact
Conflicts between colleagues can take many forms. A classic example: "I can no longer work with this person because they don't do their job well." This statement sounds clear-cut – but it isn't. Because it describes a subjective perception, not a verifiable fact. And this is exactly where a common mistake begins: perceptions are treated as facts. That creates polarisation before the conversation has even started. Good conflict mediation begins with a different fundamental question: not "Who is right?" but "What do you – and we as an organisation – need in order to make collaboration possible again?"
Clarifying Goals – Individually and Together
Behind accusations there are almost always needs that feel (or are perceived to be) under threat: being heard, experiencing fairness, gaining clarity about exp…Behind accusations there are almost always needs that feel (or are perceived to be) under threat: being heard, experiencing fairness, gaining clarity about expectations. Those who understand this can mediate rather than judge. The shared goal must be realistic. It is not about two people liking each other – it is about them being able to work together again. This distinction matters. And it takes the pressure off.
Individual Conversations First, Then Together
Anyone who enters a mediation conversation without having been heard first brings a full emotional load with them – and releases it at the wrong moment. Individual conversations are what make people ready to talk at all. They create the space needed for someone to be willing to open up. At the same time, they give the mediator important orientation: where are the real wounds? What is negotiable, and what is not? Key questions for these conversations:
- What is weighing on you the most right now?
- What would need to happen for collaboration to become possible again?
- What is a realistic outcome for you?
The answers to these questions determine how the joint conversation should be structured – and whether the time for it is even right yet.
Impartiality Instead of Neutrality
The setting has a strong influence on emotional safety: equal footing, a neutral atmosphere, clear ground rules. And the mediating person is not neutral – they are impartial. That means: keeping both sides equally in view, acknowledging emotions without taking sides – and still providing structure and direction.
The SCARF Model: Why Conflicts Escalate
One of the most valuable insights from the training was the framing of conflicts through the SCARF model. Developed by neuroscientist David Rock, it describes five core needs that drive human behaviour in social contexts: Status (how I am perceived relative to others), Certainty (predictability and security), Autonomy (the sense of having influence), Relatedness (belonging and trust) and Fairness (the experience of being treated justly). Conflicts escalate when several of these needs are threatened simultaneously – and that is precisely why addressing the factual level alone is so often ineffective. Good mediation therefore does not only address content: it creates emotional safety.
Empowering Managers, Involving HR Early
Managers should not automatically mediate conflicts themselves – they often lack the necessary impartiality. Many are conflict-averse, not out of disinterest, but out of uncertainty. HR can provide support here: through training, early intervention and a clear understanding of roles. And HR should not only be brought in as a last resort. Early involvement – when escalation is looming, power imbalances exist, or legal risks are at play – preserves room to act before it is lost.
Conclusion: Workability, Not Harmony
Conflict mediation is not a one-off conversation, but a process. It requires commitment: documenting agreements in writing, clarifying responsibilities, scheduling check-ins. And it requires patience – because trust that has eroded over months does not rebuild in a single conversation. What this training made clear once again: it is not necessarily about people liking each other. It is about being able to work together professionally, respectfully and reliably. That is achievable – if everyone involved is willing to invest genuine energy in making it happen.
Many thanks to Katharina Yombi for her expert guidance and to everyone who attended and made this exchange so lively.