How to Manage Conflict at Work and Beyond

By PON Staff — on April 20th, 2026 / Conflict Resolution

How can we get along with people whose views we find offensive, harmful, or downright wrong? This question looms large in our politically polarized world, writes Harvard Kennedy School Professor Julia Minson in her new book, How to Disagree Better.

During a recent Program on Negotiation (PON) Live! event, Minson noted that the many tumultuous events of the past five years—from the Covid-19 pandemic to the war in Ukraine—have triggered uncomfortable interpersonal conflicts for many of us, and even fractured relationships at and outside work.

“Some disagreements are so personal and feel so consequential, so morally weighty, that people don’t really feel like they can engage with an opposing perspective without walking away feeling battered and bruised,” she said.

Our divisions are driving us further apart, into mistrust and even open contempt. In her research, Minson set out to identify how to manage conflict at work and in our personal lives. She found solutions in our most basic conversational building blocks: words and phrases.

The Receptiveness Difference

Some of us are not very comfortable navigating differences, Minson learned: We either avoid disagreement entirely or fly off the handle, making the situation worse. Others, by comparison, are “quite good at disagreement,” she said during her PON talk. “They are curious, interested in opposing views, and engage in arguments on both sides in a deep way.”

These individuals are skilled at receptiveness, a quality that Minson defines as “a person’s willingness to access, consider, and evaluate supporting and opposing views in a relatively impartial manner.” Receptive people consume more balanced information on both sides of an issue. They also evaluate arguments more fairly than those who are less receptive.

Relative to people who are less receptive, people who are more receptive reap the following interpersonal benefits, according to Minson:

· They form more cross-partisan friendships: They have more people in their personal and professional networks with differing political views.

· They are considered more appealing collaborators and advisors: People want them on their teams, seek out their advice, and are more willing to help them in tough situations.

· They experience fewer negative emotions when engaged in disagreement and conflict.

Receptiveness, Minson is careful to note, does not mean compromising on your opinions or changing your mind. Rather, it means being willing to listen openly and engage others in productive dialogue. To assess your own level of receptiveness, take this quiz.

Increase Your Receptiveness: The HEAR Framework

She and her collaborators had pairs of study participants discuss an issue that was important to them. The researchers analyzed these online chats and identified four main hallmarks of conversational receptiveness, summed up in the acronym HEAR: Hedge your claims, Emphasize agreement, Acknowledge other perspectives, and Reframe more positively.

Like any skill, receptiveness can be improved through training and thoughtful practice—namely, through small changes in our choice of language, Minson has found. Here are the adjustments we can make to our speech to improve our receptiveness:

Hedge Your Claims:

· “I think it’s possible that . . . ”

· “This might happen because . . . ”

· “Some people tend to think . . . ”

Compare the blanket statement “Covid vaccines are safe and effective” to a statement that contains three hedges (while also being more accurate): “Most physicians tend to think that Covid vaccines are largely safe and effective” (“most,” “tend to,” and “largely”). By softening your claims, hedging makes your arguments seem less antagonistic and improves the odds of a productive conversation. When you hedge your claims, you show that you think the world is complex and that there are exceptions to rules, explains Minson.

Emphasize Agreement:

· “I think we both want to . . . ”

· “I agree with some of what you are saying . . . ”

· “We are both concerned with . . . ”

Describing areas of agreement can also reduce defensiveness and promote understanding. In any debate, any two people will be able to agree on certain things, notes Minson. You might not agree on who your town’s mayor should be, but you can likely agree that it should be someone ethical and engaged in the community. Stating areas of agreement can allow you to start a conversation with a sense of shared goals.

Acknowledge Other Perspectives:

· “I understand that . . . ”

· “I see your point . . . ”

· “I think what you’re saying is . . . ”

Restate what the other person has just said in a way that leaves them feeling confident that you were truly listening. For example, “I hear that the team is working really long hours, and you’re concerned about meeting the client’s deadline. I can’t add more staff to the team right now, but I’d like to discuss other ways we might alleviate the problem.” When people feel heard, they will become more willing to engage in a productive dialogue.

Reframe more positively:

· “I think it’s great when . . . ”

· “I really appreciate it when . . . ”

· “It would be so wonderful if . . . ”

Try replacing negative words such as no, can’t, won’t, and don’t with more positive words. For example, instead of saying, “I hate being pushed into decisions. Please stop,” you might say: “I really appreciate it when I have more time to consider important decisions. Thank you for understanding.” Switching from a negative to a positive frame can greatly improve how your ideas are received.

When we model receptiveness, Minson has found, people tend to respond in kind. The result is not necessarily agreement but a positive feedback loop of engagement and understanding.

What techniques have you applied to the question of how to manage conflict at work?

Comment