4 common types of team conflict (and how to resolve them)

1. Conflict focused on one person

Sometimes a conflict on a team can be focused on one specific person who may be the "odd one out." This person can be difficult to get along with or isn't as motivated to engage with the team, the authors write. Alternatively, this person could be the devil's advocate that pushes the team to consider different ways of working when everyone else gets too comfortable.

This type of conflict occurs in around 20–25% of all team conflicts, the authors write, and it's important that managers ensure the team doesn't gang up on one individual. While it can be easy to scapegoat all negative things onto the one person or shut them down because "majority rules," it doesn't allow you to uncover underlying problems, like whether this person is experiencing a personal challenge or whether their team role isn't motivating.

Instead, it's useful to ask the individual sincere questions to understand their perspective and be empathetic towards them, all while creating new insights for your team, the authors write. Research has found that when exposed to different points of view, teams are more likely to think divergently, increasing their capacity to learn and understand problems more deeply.

You should also avoid taking the team out for team-building exercises to deal with a solo dissenter, as it's likely to annoy the majority of the team who know they aren't the problem and it doesn't address the fundamental problem, the authors write.

2. Conflict between two people

According to the authors, the most common type of conflict within teams is when two people disagree, which comprises around 35% of team conflict. While it's possible this conflict could escalate over time and include others, evidence suggests most people tend to avoid taking sides, meaning the two people will disagree until one gives up or someone steps in to moderate.

This type of conflict can sometimes be relationship-based, the authors write. For example, perhaps two people have a history of animosity towards each other, and if they do, it's important to be cautious when trying to resolve it. Mediation could help, but it's important to make those sessions separate from the team and private, rather than a drama for other team members to watch.

Alternatively, you could consider whether the two individuals should be on the same team and if so, see if there's a way to redesign workflow so the two people can minimize their need to interact.

If the dual conflict is centered on the team's tasks, then leaders should attempt a different strategy, the authors write. If it's civil, this disagreement will likely help the team perform better in the long run and often resolves naturally as the team determines which actions to take. Small debates about ideas are essential for helping people vet those ideas.

Given this, it may be tempting for a leader to assign a devil's advocate to create artificial conflict between two or more members in order to better flesh out ideas, but the authors write that research show this doesn't work, and typically doesn't produce the same psychological reaction as listening to an authentically different point of view.

4. Conflict among the entire team

A conflict in which everyone on the team is arguing with each other is a relatively rare form of conflict, occurring in less than 15% of teams, the authors write.

This type of conflict can emerge early on in a project when everyone has a different idea of what should be done, but more often than not, it occurs in response to poor team performance and related feedback. Poor performance can prompt team members to assign blame to others who then respond by shifting that blame elsewhere.

In this type of conflict, it's important to get everyone to come together in the best interests of the team, the authors write. That could mean better articulating your team's goal or vision or reaffirming their identity.

In the instance of a team failure, this means debriefing poor performance feedback by focusing on the collective rather than calling out specific individuals. For example, a team leader or member could articulate strategies that everyone on the team can improve or contribute to in a positive way in order to look forward rather than relitigating the past.

It's likely that whatever conflict occurs on your team is "as unique as the individuals involved, and yet, probably also fits into one of these four patterns," the authors write. "Knowing the pattern of your team’s conflict gives you more information about the number of people involved, how they are involved, and where to focus your efforts when it comes to achieving positive outcomes from team conflict."