Two colleagues clash repeatedly. Interventions help temporarily, then the conflict returns. The specific issues change, but the dynamic persists. The manager's tried coaching conversations, mediation, even rearranging project assignments — nothing sticks.
I've seen this pattern so many times it's almost predictable. And here's the thing most people miss: this usually indicates a style conflict rather than a personal conflict. And style conflicts require a completely different resolution approach.
How to Spot a Style Conflict
A manufacturing company in Johor brought me in to help with two senior managers who'd been at each other's throats for months. HR had documented everything — the complaints, the mediation sessions, the performance impacts. Everyone assumed it was a personality clash.
But when I mapped their work styles, the picture changed completely. One was a strong Reasoning style — methodical, analytical, needed to examine every angle before committing. The other was a dominant Doing style — action-oriented, decisive, wanted to move fast. They weren't fighting because they disliked each other. They were fighting because their operating systems were fundamentally different.
Style conflicts look like:
- The same people clashing regardless of topic
- Friction that seems disproportionate to the issue
- Both parties believing they're obviously right
- Mutual frustration without either being "wrong"
Style conflicts feel personal but aren't. They're about different operating systems trying to work together without a shared language for how they differ.
The Patterns I See Most Often
Reasoning vs. Creating: "You shoot down every idea" vs. "You never think things through"
Reasoning vs. Doing: "You rush to judgment" vs. "You analyze forever"
Creating vs. Doing: "You never commit to anything" vs. "You won't let me explore"
Relating vs. Doing: "You don't care about people" vs. "You're too focused on feelings"
Sound familiar? These aren't personality flaws. They're predictable friction points between different ways of approaching work. And once you see them as patterns, they become far less threatening — and far more solvable.
The Five-Step Framework I Use With Every Client
Step 1: Name it as style
"I'm noticing we keep getting stuck in a pattern. I think it might be a style difference rather than either of us being wrong."
This one sentence depersonalizes the conflict immediately. I've watched two people who were barely speaking to each other visibly relax when the conversation shifted from "who's right" to "how we're different."
Step 2: Identify the styles involved
Help both parties understand their own style and the other person's. "You tend to need thorough analysis before deciding. They tend to want to move quickly. Neither is wrong — they're different approaches."
Step 3: Acknowledge what each brings
"Your analytical approach catches risks. Their action orientation drives results. We need both."
This is where the real shift happens. When people see their counterpart's style as a contribution rather than an obstacle, the dynamic changes.
Step 4: Design collaboration
"How can we structure our work to give you enough analysis time while giving them enough forward motion?"
Step 5: Create specific agreements
Vague commitments don't hold. Specific agreements do:
- "We'll spend X time on analysis before deciding"
- "Once we decide, we commit and don't revisit unless new data emerges"
- "We'll check in at these points to ensure both styles are served"
Back at that manufacturing company, those two senior managers went from weekly escalations to HR to one of the most productive partnerships on the leadership team. The conflict didn't disappear because they changed who they were. It resolved because they understood why they clashed and designed around it.
What to Do When You're the Mediator
If you're facilitating conflict resolution between others, here's what I've learned works:
Resist blame. Neither person is wrong. The moment you take sides, you've lost. Help them see it's a system issue, not a character issue.
Translate between styles. "When they ask lots of questions, they're not attacking your idea — that's how they engage with information." I spend half my time in these sessions just translating one style to another.
Focus on process, not personality. Don't try to change people. Design processes that work for both. You'll exhaust yourself trying to make a Reasoning style "lighten up" or a Doing style "slow down." Instead, build a workflow that gives each what they need.
Create explicit agreements. Write them down. Revisit them. Hold people to them. Vague promises to "try harder" accomplish nothing.
Before the Conflict Starts
The best resolution is prevention. Teams that understand style differences before conflict erupts handle disagreements better:
- Share style information at onboarding — not as a label, but as a conversation
- Discuss style dynamics when forming new teams or project groups
- Address emerging patterns before they become entrenched narratives
But how many teams actually do this? In my experience, most wait until the conflict is well established before anyone thinks to look at the underlying dynamics. Don't be that team.
When Conflict Stops Being Personal
Conflict resolution through style understanding produces:
- Faster resolution — you stop fighting the wrong battle
- Lasting resolution — you've addressed the root cause, not just the symptoms
- Better relationships — disagreement gets depersonalized
- Improved collaboration — the team is designed for differences, not pretending they don't exist
The pattern that seemed unsolvable becomes manageable once you see it as style rather than personality. At the end of the day, most people don't want to be in conflict with their colleagues. Give them a framework that explains what's happening, and they'll do the work to fix it.
