Formally Addressing Micro-Conflicts Vs Toxic Conflict Resolution

Why is it that formal conflict resolution is always at the end of the process and not the start?

When most workplace conflicts, needing resolution, usually (if not in every case) start with a minor infraction, why not enable team members to more formally address these micro-conflicts or minor spats, well before intense and expensive conflict resolution is ever needed?

The truth is, most “big” or toxic conflicts don’t erupt overnight. They grow quietly from “small” spats where someone or both are being overly dogmatic, “I am right, your are wrong”, and then expanding into disrespect, miscommunication, and finally being dismissive. These situations are often ignored because we lack a safe, structured way to address them. By the time HR or managers gets involved, trust has already eroded and relationships have hardened into positions (even if resolved later).

Addressing micro-conflicts in real time requires shifting from reactive to proactive thinking. It means empowering participating team members, as opposed to managers, to intervene early, with fairness, clarity, and proportion. A simple measured level of objecting and an appropriate acknowledgment, used wisely, can often stop escalation before it begins.

Imagine if every team had a shared charter agreement and playbook for addressing friction as it happens, not after it festers. A culture where calling out a minor infraction wasn’t seen as confrontation but as collaboration, a way to maintain fairness and flow.

We believe that true psychological safety isn’t about avoiding conflict; it’s about managing it intelligently and early at the micro level.

Until organizations make that shift, from conflict resolution to enabling their teams to formally address their micro-conflicts, we’ll keep treating the symptom instead of the cause—minor spats.