Practical tools to resolve conflict effectively

Understanding the role of conflict and recognizing when it becomes harmful is only part of the equation. In practice, most teams struggle with how to handle it in real time – often under pressure, with limited resources, and across different levels of hierarchy.

In previous articles of our three-part series, we talked about how conflict should not be feared and, when resolved correctly, is a source of positive innovation. But how to achieve this positive solution? This article provides concrete tools and structures for resolving conflict in a way that leads to better outcomes, both within teams and between founders and investors.

Read the previous articles in the series:

• Don’t let a good conflict go to waste
• Founder mismatch: when conflict becomes a problem and how to solve it

Switching to learning mode

The resolution of most conflicts does not lie in will, but in approach – for example, people try to impose their own point of view or reach a compromise, although this rarely leads to the best result.

According to Rein Lemberpuu, the biggest risk is that conflict resolution turns into bargaining: “If conflict resolution turns into a deal, where you give to me, I give to you, it will lead to progress, but not to the best result. The focus should be on the best joint result instead of individual victories.”

The most important tool in resolving a conflict is switching to listening and learning mode. This means that instead of arguing and explaining your own perspective, you consciously try to understand the other side.

A good conflict is not a spontaneous argument, but a guided process. Rein describes a very specific structure for this.

How a structured dialogue works:

1. First, one person only asks questions and the other party tells their own perspective. The questioner only listens – they do not answer, comment, argue or explain their own perspective. This avoids a situation where both are talking at the same time and neither of them really understands the other.
2. Second, the roles are reversed. Now the other person asks questions and the first person speaks. This gives both parties room to explain their side.
3. Third, you intentionally take time off, not jump to conclusions. This is a critical part that is often skipped. You need time to digest new information; you do not need to react to it immediately.
4. Then the parties come back together and both offer their own solution, both listen to the other, and a better solution is found together.

“This changes the dynamic of the conflict. When one party really listens, it creates a space where the other can fully express their thoughts. And when both parties have time to think calmly and digest this new information, the perspective naturally changes,” Rein explains.

Instead of a middle ground, there is a better way

The goal of conflict resolution is not to find a middle ground, but a better way. If there is a real dialogue and each party integrates the other's perspective into their own worldview, even a little bit, a new and better solution will emerge naturally, taking into account more angles.

Rein describes the difference mathematically: “If people have a poor ability to work with conflict, a compromise can be created. A compromise is like 1 + 1 = 1.5. People with a high conflict capacity can find completely new possibilities. A good solution is like 1 + 1 = 2.5.”

The most common obstacle to reaching a good solution is the already mentioned bargaining. In this case, the parties are focused on personal goals, not on the best possible result together. Another critical obstacle is stubbornness. “A stubborn person doesn't upgrade their solution. They may listen, but they won't change their position – in that case, no value can come from conflict. And two stubborn people only sow destruction,” Rein says bluntly.

Leader’s role in conflict 

A situation where the parties are at different hierarchical levels, such as a founder and a team member, adds complexity to conflict resolution. In this case, the problem is not only in views, but also in whether people even dare express these views. 

As Rein describes, it is usually “more difficult for a person in a lower position to initiate their own conflict or express their own view”. This leads to a classic situation where “the CEO doesn’t hear the truth” – not because they don’t want to, but because people don’t dare to speak up about what is really going on.

The fear is simple: maybe my view is wrong, maybe I look stupid, maybe they don’t like it. Therefore, important signals do not travel upwards. If the leader himself is not afraid of conflict, he must consciously create an environment where others dare to share their views. This means actively encouraging and paying attention to people “starting to bring their own picture”.

According to Rein, it is generally beneficial if the management is a little more conflicted than the rest of the team, because it is easier for a conflicted person to initiate a conversation and at the same time listen to the other person – they do not feel as threatened by differing opinions and are therefore willing to open a dialogue.

Prevent the accumulation of conflicts

One of the most common problems is not conflict itself, but the fact that there is not enough of it. If “everything is fine” in a company for a long time, this can be a sign of stagnation, not good cooperation. According to Rein, in such cases, it’s worth consciously looking for conflict in order to refresh and “upgrade” the system. Otherwise, the team “rests on its laurels” and does not notice how it is blindly moving in the wrong direction.

However, it is not always easy to understand whether harmony is real or “someone is suffocating fire with firewood”. To avoid this, Rein describes a simple practice that they both teach and use in their self-development school – regular “clearing”. It focuses on two questions: what is not working for me and what is working. This is not a place for discussion or problem-solving, but rather a place for sharing and listening. No one argues or explains why the other is wrong – the goal is only to make visible what would otherwise remain hidden.

“We do this weekly in our school team and then move on with the agenda. But people need to have a safe place to bring up things that would otherwise smolder under the surface until they explode. At the same time, it gives the leader and the team a clear picture of what is really going on – a constant “pulse” of the state of the organization is created. Without such conscious practice, conflicts tend to accumulate until they are difficult to resolve constructively,” Rein describes.

Dealum’s co-founder Rein Lemberpuu is an entrepreneur, investor, and mentor who has founded over 30 companies – from one-person companies to organizations with several hundred employees – and made dozens of startup investments as an investor. He has worked as a mentor for 10+ years, led an international startup mentor program, and is the founder, CEO, and mentor of the self-development school .Contriber School.