I once faced a significant conflict in a team I managed, one that I found extremely complex and difficult to understand and resolve. I knew there were several dimensions to the conflict, including historical elements, some situational components, and–perhaps most significant–individual idiosyncrasies among the parties involved. And I was part of the system myself as the manager and trying to navigate through the conflict. (At least one party perceived me as a driving factor in the conflict.) I tried some mediation of my own but quickly found that to be unproductive and not suitable for me to facilitate from within the conflict system. Another manager later attempted mediation and restoration, but those efforts also did very little to change the situation in any meaningful way. I appreciate now that, at a minimum, not calling in a third-party, neutral conflict resolution expert was a critical miss.

I’ve continued to reflect on that conflict as I’ve deepened my understanding and expertise in conflict resolution and mediation. Much of the literature in this area assumes a baseline level of emotional regulation, insight, and cognitive functioning among participants. But what if you’re dealing with individuals who, for a range of reasons (trauma history, personality factors, skill deficits, power dynamics), can’t access those capacities in the moment?

What I’ve learned is that when dealing with people who cannot or will not engage in good faith, reflective dialogue, a traditional mediation or conflict resolution process can actually retraumatize participants, exacerbate mistrust, or lead to pseudo-resolution that later unravels.

Here are a few guiding principles and approaches better suited to this kind of situation:

1. Shift from Mediation to Conflict Containment

Instead of aiming for full resolution, the goal becomes reducing harm, clarifying boundaries, and establishing behavioral expectations.

• Reframe the objective: “We may not be able to repair the relationship, but we can establish expectations for how we work alongside each other.”
• Use management authority (or support leadership in doing so) to set and enforce norms.

2. Work with Each Person Individually Before (or Instead of) Bringing Them Together

These kinds of cases often benefit from extended pre-mediation coaching or even parallel processes rather than joint sessions.

• Conflict coaching: Help individuals understand their emotional reactivity, communication patterns, and how their behavior affects others.
• Narrative approaches: Allow each person to tell their story safely, with a facilitator validating the emotional truth without needing to agree on facts.
• Somatic/trauma-informed tools: If participants are flooded or reactive, they may need more than cognitive tools; they need support regulating their nervous systems. Here, behavioral health expert resources may need to be engaged.

3. Use Restorative Practices Very Carefully

Restorative justice is often a desired goal. But it works only when the following are in place:

• A shared desire for repair,
• Capacity to own impact, and
• A relatively equal power dynamic.

Hybrid approaches should be considered—such as a facilitated accountability process that includes:

• Private preparation,
• Clear behavioral agreements,
• Possibly a structured apology (if appropriate), but without putting emotional labor on the more impacted party.

4. Normalize Limits on Mediation

It’s OK to conclude that mediation is not the right tool and pivot to organizational responses such as:

• Reassignments,
• Performance management for uncooperative behavior (e.g., refusal to engage constructively),
• Managed separation, whether that’s a progression of performance management/discipline or coaching an employee through voluntary separation,
• Team restructuring to minimize contact.

5. Apply a Systems Lens

Sometimes the dysfunction is less about individual pathology and more about a system that enabled or ignored poor behavior. Questions to ask:

• Were there unaddressed boundary violations or uneven consequences?
• Was leadership too avoidant or unclear?
• Are these individuals carrying the burden of organizational dysfunction?

In this light, the intervention might need to focus more on leadership development or cultural reset than on repairing a relationship.

Lessons learned

1. The idealized version of mediation often doesn’t fit the raw, complex conflicts in real workplaces, where the parties to the conflict may be emotionally wounded, unskilled, or ego-defended. A blended model of conflict coaching, containment strategies, and leadership-supported accountability is often more effective than mediation or mediation alone.
2. It’s worth highlighting this again: Involving a third-party neutral with expertise in conflict analysis is critical. (I regret not being more assertive in asking for such a resource.)

The following tool serves as the frame for that analysis.

Conflict Intervention Triage Tool

If you find yourself navigating these complex waters or supporting a manager or team leader who is, tread carefully and reach out to myself or another conflict expert for support!