When Leaders Disagree: A Coaching-Led Approach to Conflict
Conflicts between leaders are inevitable and if left unaddressed, they can quietly erode trust, execution and team morale. This article explores a real-world leadership conflict between two managers and examines how a coaching-led approach can restore clarity and collaboration.
1. Context
Consider a scenario where two managers, Anne and Alex, who have distinct leadership styles and approaches to project management hold conflicting views.
Anne, the manager of the accounting team, is pleased with the team’s progress, hitting milestones, and addressing technical debt. However, she faces a challenge with Alex from the unrelated Risk team, who tends to revisit decisions and question assumptions during team syncs. Alex’s edits to user stories and concerns about finalized features create discomfort. Anne is seeking guidance on how to navigate this situation, recognizing the importance of questioning assumptions but also expressing a need for clarity. Despite the challenge, Anne maintains a positive outlook, conveying appreciation for her role and a willingness to discuss and address issues in the upcoming one-on-one meeting with her manager.
Alex, who manages the Risk team, reaches out to his manager to express concerns about Anne’s leadership abilities, indicating that despite offering his advice, he finds himself extensively involved in the implementation of decisions. Alex considers he has made considerable efforts to assist Anne with the challenges he perceives, attempting to keep things on track. Alex is skeptical about Anne’s capability to lead and doesn’t believe she possesses the necessary qualities for the role.
Sarah, the Product Manager, reaches out to Anne to discuss some features that Alex apparently raised questions about, even though the accounting team has already finalized them.
Conflicts, such as those arising between two managers, highlight the need for a strategic approach to resolving differences in leadership styles, communication preferences and decision-making processes.
Understanding the root causes has the potential not only to repair tense relationships, but also to drive teams towards increased productivity and success.
2. Initial observations and dynamics
The challenges between the two managers arise from potential differences in leadership styles, decision-making approaches and communication preferences. Anne is navigating Alex’s tendency to revisit decisions and question assumptions during team syncs, causing discomfort. On the other hand, Alex raises concerns about Anne’s ability to make decisive decisions and demonstrate confidence in leading the accounting team.
The tension escalates, affecting the team’s morale and overall productivity. The objective is not only to address the current conflict but also to foster better communication and collaboration between the two managers for future projects.
Overseeing managers at different stages requires situational leadership: adjusting the approach to each individual while anchoring the work in a coaching framework.
Coaching means stepping aside, creating the space for the individual to discover their own solution, in partnership with the coach. It often takes multiple conversations, but its impact compounds over the long term.
The process begins with clarifying questions, seeking permission first, then listening without interruption. The goal is understanding, not immediate resolution. Clarification and listening alternate until genuine awareness comes to light.
Separate one-on-one discussions with each manager allow space to understand individual perspectives: their view of their role, the challenges they face and how they experience collaboration with one another. Being impartial, offering consistent support and cultivating open communication are crucial reducing tension and building trust. This conflict is less about right or wrong and more about alignment, boundaries, and decision ownership.
The focus should remain on behaviors and dynamics that can be improved, rather than on personal traits or assumptions about intent.
In individual conversations, strengths and areas for development are addressed with equal care, while reinforcing the importance of teamwork, mutual support and shared responsibility within the team.
Attention is given to how individual behaviors may interfere with collaboration, as well as to each person’s growth potential.
3. Individual Discussions
Structure of the one-on-one sessions:
Create psychological safety – Ask for permission: “Is this a good time to talk?”
Share observations – Describe concrete, neutral observations: “I’ve noticed…”
Explain the impact – Clarify how the behavior affects the team, outcomes or collaboration.
Define future expectations – Align on the desired behavior going forward.
3.1. Individual discussion - Anne
The discussion begins by acknowledging her efforts and contributions. From there, the focus shifts to the impact of specific actions on team dynamics, highlighting the importance of collaboration and clear boundaries.
Guidance is offered on how to raise concerns respectfully, while encouraging open dialogue between them to reach alignment, by establishing clearer boundaries where needed.
The discussion then explores to see if her team was indeed hitting the milestones and explore her point of view regarding the interactions with Alex.
The conversation might open with an acknowledgment of her engagement and ownership, such as: “It’s great to see your enthusiasm for leading the Accounting team, and I’m here to provide guidance on handling these dynamics with Alex or any other challenges you’re facing.”
By re-engaging in team syncs and revisiting finalized decisions, Alex introduces friction. Questioning assumptions is healthy, but it must be balanced with respect for decision closure and execution.
Coaching questions include:
What are the obstacles you are facing? - Invite the individual to frame the challenge in their own words.
Can you tell me more? - Encourage depth and clarity; allow space to uncover underlying issues.
What have you already tried to address this?
Follow with reflective prompts such as:
Why do you think that didn’t work? or
If you were to approach it differently, what would you change?
These questions often lead to insight and self-generated solutions.What’s important about that to you? - This helps surface the values or concerns driving the reaction.
What is the next step you can take?
3.2 Individual discussion - Alex
It seems like Alex is experiencing some frustration and concern about Anne’s decisiveness and confidence in leading the accounting team, leading to doubts about her capabilities.
The goal is to understand the root cause of Alex’s involvement without making assumptions. This includes gaining clarity on the progress of the initial technical solution, the workload of the Accounting team and the extent of involvement from both the Risk team and Alex.
The conversation begins by thanking Alex for sharing his observations and concerns, while acknowledging the effort he invested in supporting Anne.
The focus is on understanding why he perceives Anne as lacking decisiveness or confidence, exploring the observations behind that assessment rather than assumptions.
Alex is encouraged to communicate openly with Anne and to engage in a direct conversation about the challenges they are facing. The goal is to develop mutual understanding by exploring underlying causes and identifying ways to work more effectively together.
Role clarity and boundaries
While Alex’s input and questioning of assumptions can be valuable, especially if it may lead to better solutions, it’s important to ensure that his involvement aligns with the team’s processes and doesn’t disrupt the established workflow or cause confusion.
The focus is on understanding whether Alex edited stories after they were already finalized, and whether those actions fell within the scope of product management responsibilities. While team leads may occasionally add implementation notes, in this case ownership clearly sat with Anne, not Alex.
Establishing clear boundaries around who participates in which discussions, and to what extent, is essential. Role clarity protects both decision quality and team flow.
If Alex’s input adds value, there should be a defined process for sharing insights or questioning assumptions, without reopening finalized decisions unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
If, however, the input proves disruptive rather than constructive, the situation needs to be addressed professionally and collaboratively. The conversation should be approached with curiosity and a genuine intent to understand Alex’s perspective, using concrete examples where his involvement created friction or slowed execution to illustrate the impact on the team.
Finally, decision-making and approval processes should be created or reaffirmed. Any significant changes or challenges to assumptions should follow a formal review path, ensuring that late-stage interventions do not undermine delivery or team trust.
Reflective questions include:
Can you tell me more?
How does this affect you?
What is the challenge here?
What feels unfair about it?
Whose judgment concerns you?
How could you do it differently?
What is the next step you can take?
4. Structured joint meeting
Anne and Alex are encouraged to address issues directly with one another first, fostering ownership and strengthening communication. If tensions persist or escalate, a structured discussion involving both leads can be introduced to support a constructive dialogue and help them reach a shared resolution.
Providing guidance in conflict resolution techniques in advance would enable them to handle issues autonomously.
The structured meeting includes the following steps:
Establishing the objective (address concerns and find a resolution regarding the communication between the team)
Listening to both of them.
Encourage each other’s perspective.
Facilitate the conversation to find a common ground and build a solution and then define the action points.
The discussion starts by acknowledging the value both teams bring and expressing a desire to ensure fairness and collaboration. For instance, “I appreciate both of your dedication and contributions to the team. I’ve noticed/Recently, there have been instances where our collaboration might be unintentionally causing some challenges regarding the boundaries between our teams. I appreciate the effort both teams put in and I want to make sure we’re supporting each other. Can we discuss this together to find a solution that works for everyone?”
5. Reinforcing processes and communication
Next steps may include establishing a better process to support the communication between the teams and with the Product Manager.
Broader forum for discussion
When Alex’s questioning of assumptions adds value, it should be channeled in a way that supports execution. One option is to create a dedicated forum for broader or exploratory discussions, allowing ideas to be surfaced without diverting teams from their current objectives.
Regular check-ins
Regular one-on-one check-ins with each manager help track progress, surface emerging obstacles early, and provide tailored support based on individual needs and context. These conversations create space for openness and course correction before issues escalate.
Regular team syncs and updates
Scheduled cross-team syncs ensure alignment by keeping everyone informed about ongoing initiatives, key decisions and dependencies. Consistent communication reinforces shared ownership across teams.
Handled well, conflicts like this become an opportunity, not just to resolve tension, but to strengthen leadership maturity, trust and organizational clarity.