Conflict to Clarity: Tension to Resolution

In any organization, conflict is almost inevitable. People bring their own perspectives, experiences, and beliefs to the table, and these personal lenses shape how they interpret situations. What’s surprising, however, is that most conflicts aren’t actually rooted in the problem itself—they arise from how the individuals involved interpret the problem.

At the heart of these tensions is a simple truth: we don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are.

When two or more subjective interpretations clash, conflicts occur, leading to disagreement, frustration, and division. But the true problem isn’t the objective issue—it’s how our conditioned minds react to it.

This is especially evident in the workplace, where divergent views on how to approach tasks or resolve challenges can create unnecessary friction.

Let’s explore how subjective interpretations fuel these conflicts and, more importantly, how we can move beyond them to achieve a real win—not just a compromise, but a solution that serves the objective at hand.

The Root of Conflict: Subjective Interpretation

The object is ‘it’. But when that objectivity is interpreted through the lens of a uniquely conditioned mind, it becomes a subjective interpretation. If it remains at that, there is no conflict.

I see a pigeon eating scraps off the table. That’s a fact. But one person sees the pigeon as a pest because, as they feast, they leave behind droppings. Another person blames the previous customer for leaving scraps on the table, thus attracting the pigeon. The pigeon eating scraps is ‘it’. The interpretations that follow are not. Both responses are reactive thoughts to the fact, shaped by the individuals’ conditioning, conscious and unconscious desires influencing their conclusions.

However, if one is free from conditioning, what they see is simply the observable fact—nothing more, nothing less. A pigeon eating scraps off a table. Or, more abstractly, a living creature, which we have labeled a pigeon, eating something on a flat surface we call a table.

This subjective interpretation is quiet and neutral on its own. There is no conflict if another person acknowledges that their interpretation is just as valid as the first. Even so, this does not alter the fact—a pigeon is eating scraps off the table.

The subjectivity only arises from individual conditioning. However, once one attaches a conclusion to their interpretation, division and conflict follow. Now, one person is ‘right’ and the other is ‘wrong,’ even though the fact remains the same. Conflict arises, bringing along disagreement, resentment, hatred, misery, and so on.

Subjective Interpretation in Organizational Conflicts

The reason I am telling you this is because subjective interpretation lies at the heart of many conflicts, whether in personal or organizational contexts. In organizations, conflicts often arise because two or more people view a problem differently, based on their own conditioning, experiences, and expectations.

Take, for example, a situation where one person believes that the most efficient way to tackle a project is to work collaboratively in a team. Meanwhile, another person insists that individual work will yield faster results. Both perspectives are valid, but they reflect different subjective interpretations of how the project should be approached. The problem is not the project itself—it’s the differing interpretations of how to solve it.

How can this be resolved? The key lies in acknowledging that both views are subjective interpretations and recognizing the fact beneath them: the project must be completed efficiently. Instead of focusing on who is right or wrong, the discussion should remain centered on the objective fact—getting the project done. This allows for an open exploration of the most effective way to achieve that goal without being bogged down by subjective biases or personal preferences.

Why Win-Win is an Illusion

Many advocate for a "win-win" outcome, believing that compromise leads to fairness. However, a win-win is not truly a win. It’s a situation where both sides agree to take a cut, accepting less than they originally wanted. In essence, it’s a mutual compromise, not a victory.

A true win occurs when all involved recognize and act on the fact without being clouded by their subjective interpretations. In the case of the project example, rather than each party ‘cutting their losses’ by compromising on teamwork versus individual work, both should focus on what is necessary to complete the project efficiently and intelligently.

In this way, the solution becomes a win for the organization, not a half-satisfied compromise for the individuals involved.

Closing the Loop: Communication Breakdown and the True Win

In many organizations, the number one cause of conflict is communication breakdown. Misunderstandings, unclear expectations, or ambiguous messaging lead people to interpret the same situation differently, based on their individual conditioning. Each party believes they are acting rationally, but in reality, they are reacting to their subjective interpretations of the same message or problem.

For instance, imagine a team leader who communicates a project deadline with urgency, emphasizing the importance of speed. One team member interprets this as a directive to prioritize quick completion over thoroughness, while another team member believes quality is paramount and that speed is less important. This difference in subjective interpretation creates friction. The conflict isn’t about the project or the deadline itself, but rather how each person understood the communication.

How can this be resolved? By clarifying the facts.

Both team members need to set aside their interpretations and focus on the actual message: the deadline is firm, but the quality of work cannot be compromised. Once the facts are clear, the conflict dissolves because it was rooted in miscommunication, not in the actual requirements of the project.

Why Win-Win is an Illusion (Revisited)

Many would try to find a “win-win” solution in this situation, perhaps by having both parties compromise—some speed, some quality. But this is not a true win. The true win comes when both parties recognize that the most effective solution is not a compromise, but one that serves the project’s objective: delivering quality work on time.

When everyone sets aside their subjective interpretations and focuses on the factual needs of the project, the solution becomes clear, without the need for either side to take a “cut.”

This is why resolving conflicts through clear communication and recognition of facts leads to real progress. Once subjective interpretations are put aside, intelligence acts in service of the objective, not divided interests. In that space, there is no need for compromise—only clarity, action, and a true win.

#OrganizationalConflict #ConflictResolution #EffectiveCommunication #Leadership #WorkplaceDynamics #ProblemSolving #WinWinIllusion #Teamwork #ProfessionalGrowth #TrueResolution