How would you address a conflict between two team members who have differing communication styles?

🧠 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝗔𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 In my experience, resolving communication conflicts begins with understanding how I communicate and what drives me. I tend to be direct and outcome-focused — which works well in fast-paced environments but can unintentionally come across as too blunt for others who value nuance or emotional tone. Recognizing this helped me approach differences with more empathy. When teammates clash due to style — say, one values structure while the other thrives on spontaneity — I’ve found it helpful to step back, assess each person's natural style, and look at what’s driving them. It’s rarely about right or wrong — just different lenses.

The classic “talks-too-much” meets “talks-too-little” tango! I’d host a calm, neutral chat — think Switzerland, not WWE SmackDown. I’d help each understand the other’s style (direct vs. reflective, for example), using real-life examples — Jobs and Wozniak made magic despite differences. I’d set ground rules for clarity and empathy, maybe even toss in some DISC or MBTI insights for fun. Lastly, I’d agree on a “team language” — shared norms for emails, meetings, etc. Communication is like cricket: some bat, some bowl, but we need both to win!

Addressing conflict arising from differing communication styles involves first acknowledging the validity of both styles and creating a safe space for open discussion. Facilitating a conversation where each member can articulate their needs and understand the other's perspective is crucial. This can involve active listening, clarifying misunderstandings, and identifying specific instances of miscommunication. Establishing clear communication guidelines, suggesting compromise through adopting aspects of each style, and potentially implementing communication training can help bridge the gap. The ultimate goal is to foster mutual respect and create a more inclusive and effective communication environment for the entire team.

Et si on changeait de décor ? Parfois, sortir du cadre habituel aide à débloquer un conflit. Il faut parfois Proposer une activité commune hors du bureau : un déjeuner, une séance de sport, un apéro. En dehors de la pression et du cadre formel les échanges sont souvent plus naturels je trouve. Cela permet alors de recréer du lien humain loin des rôles hiérarchiques ou des tensions . Quand on se comprend en tant que personnes on communique mieux en tant que collègues selon moi. Et qui dit bonne communication dit moins de conflits.

Bridge the gap by having a neutral conversation, highlighting strengths in both styles. Set common ground rules to foster mutual respect and clarity.

Mediation can help to resolve communication difficulties and develop mutual understanding. Facilitate a debate in which both team members may express their opinions freely. Emphasise the significance of teamwork and common goals in aligning priorities. Highlight the qualities of each style and consider how to successfully complement them. Provide concrete ideas for bridging gaps, such as changing tone or approach. Encourage empathy by emphasising active listening and providing constructive comments. Regular check-ins promote progress and harmony, promoting a cohesive working atmosphere that supports diverse communication styles.

I have used 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘆, 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲, and 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 1. 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝗼𝘁 𝗖𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲. Observe team members interactions and have 1:1's to understand concerns. Get a 𝟯𝗿𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄. 2. 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 a 𝗻𝗲𝘂𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 in a group call, to 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 and 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻 3. Define 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗴𝗼𝗮𝗹𝘀 and 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 4. Come up with 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 - 𝗥𝗼𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗮𝘀𝗸𝘀, 𝗰𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄s 5. Set 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 for 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, and 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘂𝗽.

A team can have unique personalities, each different from the other. This means that their communication skills and problem solving approach is also based on their differing identities. In such a case, there should be an understanding so as to acknowledge these differences and edtablish a neutral ground for open dialogues without any criticism.

Converse individualmente com cada pessoa para entender seus estilos de comunicação e percepções sobre o conflito. Depois, promova um diálogo conjunto em um ambiente seguro e sem julgamentos, onde o foco seja ouvir com empatia e buscar compreensão mútua. Facilite a conversa com escuta ativa, garantindo que ambos se sintam ouvidos. Valide sentimentos e ajude a construir acordos práticos sobre a comunicação: tom, prazos e formas de feedback. Acompanhe o processo de perto, reforçando que aprimorar a comunicação é um caminho contínuo, construído com respeito e abertura.

I’d start by talking to each of them — one probably needs a mute button, and the other needs a “please speak now” pop-up. Then I’d get them in a room and say, “Okay, one of you’s narrating a podcast, the other’s in silent mode — let’s find the middle ground.” We’d set some fun ground rules — maybe the talker pauses after every three points, and the quiet one gets the floor first in meetings. It’s all about helping them appreciate each other’s style while making sure the team doesn’t feel like it’s attending a TED Talk or a silent film.

Help each person express their point of view while the other listens. Paraphrasing back what they heard can clarify intent vs. impact.

Bringing the two team members together for a candid, but facilitated, conversation is crucial. I wouldn't want this to feel like an interrogation, but rather a safe space for each person to express their perspective without interruption. My role would be to guide the discussion, ensuring that both voices are heard and that the focus remains on understanding, not blaming. I'd encourage them to use "I" statements to articulate their feelings and experiences, fostering a sense of vulnerability and promoting empathy. The goal is to start building a bridge between their different communication worlds.

The most effective way to deal with any conflict is to address it in the open, post haste. Set aside a few moments, and point out to each individual their strengths, yet assert that their is an ongoing issue regarding conflicting methods or attitudes that is eroding any potential positive group dynamic. People get in their own way every hour of every day. All you can do is help re-organize their own priorities, whatever those might be to serve the group.

When addressing conflict between team members with different styles, start by: 1. Encouraging self-awareness: Help each person recognize their own communication preferences and biases. 2. Fostering empathy: Facilitate discussions to help them understand each other's perspectives & intentions. 3. Finding common ground: Identify shared goals & values to build a foundation for collaboration. 4. Establishing clear guidelines: Create team communication norms that accommodate diverse styles. 5. Promoting flexibility: Encourage both parties to adapt their approach when needed. Diversity in communication styles can be a strength when managed effectively. By embracing differences, teams can unlock new levels of creativity and problem-solving.

Once the styles are out in the open, the team needs to create some shared guidelines. This isn't about forcing anyone to change their personality, but about establishing a common language and set of expectations for how the team will interact. We could brainstorm together, identifying specific behaviors that are helpful and those that create conflict. Perhaps we agree to be more mindful of tone, to actively listen without interrupting, or to check for understanding. By co-creating these norms, everyone has ownership, making it more likely they'll be followed.

When I coach leaders through conflict, I guide them to shift from fixing the issue to facilitating the relationship. Conflict is rarely just about the task—it’s about trust and values. I use the CARE Model: Curiosity, Alignment, Responsibility, Empathy. One executive reframed a tense moment by asking, “What would success look like for both of you?” That question moved the conversation from defensiveness to collaboration. Great teams don’t avoid conflict—they learn to navigate it with clarity and care.

While empathy is great, it is our leadership that typically sets the tone for communication. I have found more often than not that when a leader is unclear with their communication it can create tension within a team as members perception of what their responsibilities are remains unclear. When this happens, team members can often be seen as having communication issues, when in reality it is a leadership issue. It is important for all parties to ask “why”. Why they say what they are saying. Why they have the tone they have. It is important to understand where they are coming from before reacting.

I’ve found that empathy in teams doesn’t come from being told to ‘understand each other, it comes from slowing things down enough to actually hear what’s underneath the reaction. When two people clash, I’ll often ask each of them privately, “What do you think the other person is actually trying to achieve?” That question alone flips the focus from judgment to intent. Once people see that most conflict comes from protection, not aggression, they’re more likely to respond with curiosity than defensiveness. That’s where real progress starts.

This, to me, is the heart of the matter. It's not enough to simply understand the different styles intellectually; we need to cultivate genuine empathy. I'd encourage the team members to step into each other's shoes, to try to see the situation from the other person's point of view. This could involve role-playing, where they practice communicating in each other's style, or simply having them share stories about past experiences that have shaped their communication. Empathy dissolves defensiveness and opens the door to finding common ground.

Once there’s real understanding, I don’t push a solution; I help them co-create practical, workable agreements they actually believe in. Sometimes, it’s about deciding who takes the lead in updates, setting clearer boundaries around timing, or simply asking, “Is now a good time to talk?” It doesn’t need to be perfect, it needs to be theirs. The aim isn’t harmony, it’s rhythm. When people design their own way forward, they’re far more likely to stick with it and make it work.

Beyond then relationship of the subjects at hand, in my positions I'd focus on the subject at hand. When I to find myself a mediator, through styles translation I seek to create a common language. The most cases I've found so far would be whenever I find myself as the service provider, and I need to see cohesion between the people, finance and technically oriented teams on the customer side. They wouldn't technically be my team members (as far as the firm goes) but within the context of a project / implementation, I must see them that way.

Communication clashes can derail even the most talented teams. When faced with conflicting styles, start by acknowledging the value each brings: • Meet separately to understand each person's perspective • Identify common goals & shared priorities • Facilitate a joint discussion focused on mutual understanding • Encourage active listening and empathy-building exercises • Establish clear communication guidelines moving forward • Provide tools or training to bridge style differences Diversity in communication can be a strength when managed effectively. The key is fostering an environment where differences are respected and leveraged for better outcomes. By addressing conflicts proactively, you'll build a more cohesive, high-performing team.