Conflict management within an organisation

Conflict is not a sign something has gone wrong. It’s simply what happens whenever people with different needs, beliefs and backgrounds try to work toward the same goal. That was the reassuring starting point for “Conflict management within an organisation” a workshop on Advocates Day of the World Bladder Cancer Patient Forum 2026 in Hong Kong, led by Eric Sampson, Partner at Dramatic Difference.

Eric opened with a personal note: his own mother was successfully treated for bladder cancer, though he only found out after the fact, a small reminder of how families themselves can struggle to talk openly about hard things.

Name it before it festers

Eric’s first piece of advice was blunt: address conflict directly rather than let it sit. He called this “putting the fish on the table,” because an unaddressed problem doesn’t go away, it just rots and becomes harder to clean up later.

The room quickly named what usually causes conflict inside a patient organisation: money, politics, differing beliefs, and, often overlooked, the fact that doctors, patients, carers and researchers on the same team can share a goal while disagreeing completely on how to reach it. Culture plays a role too. Eric noted that many cultures prioritise harmony and deference to seniority, making it harder for junior or younger voices to raise disagreement, while others treat robust argument as entirely normal without any lasting damage to the relationship.

Five ways people handle conflict, and why none of them is wrong

Eric introduced the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, a well-established framework from the 1970s that maps five conflict styles by how assertive versus how cooperative each one is:

• Competing. Standing firm on your own position. Useful in emergencies, for unpopular but necessary decisions, or when you know you’re right and need to hold ground.
• Collaborating. Working together toward a genuine win-win. Best used when both sides’ concerns matter too much to compromise away.
• Compromising. Meeting in the middle. Useful for a workable, if imperfect, temporary settlement, especially between two equally committed parties.
• Avoiding. Stepping back from the issue. Sensible when the issue is minor, or when emotions are running too high for a productive conversation right now.
• Accommodating. Giving way to the other side. Right when you realise you were wrong, or when preserving the relationship matters more than winning the point.

His key message: there’s no single correct style. Most people default to whichever one feels most natural, often shaped by upbringing and culture, and overuse it even when it isn’t the best fit for the situation. The real skill is recognising which mode a moment calls for, rather than reaching for habit.

Psychological safety is not the same as being nice

The second half of the session turned to what makes it possible to raise conflict at all: psychological safety, a concept popularised by Harvard Business School’s Amy Edmondson. Eric was careful to draw out an important distinction: psychological safety isn’t about everyone getting along. It’s about people trusting they won’t be punished or humiliated for speaking honestly, which actually makes it easier to have real disagreements, not fewer of them. A team that avoids all friction to “keep the peace” often just pushes disagreement underground, where it does more damage.

Eric pointed to Google’s own internal research into team performance, a three-year study of 180 teams, widely known as Project Aristotle. Google expected to find that the best teams shared similar backgrounds, personality mixes or skill sets. None of that mattered. What did was simpler: teams that listened more than they talked, and praised each other’s work generously and genuinely.

A simple tool for difficult conversations

Eric closed with a practical framework he calls the C4 Dialogue Navigator, four elements to draw on in any hard conversation:

• Connection, building the relationship and trust before diving into the disagreement itself
• Curiosity, asking open, genuine questions (“How do you see it?” rather than “Why did you do that?”) to actually understand the other side
• Courage, being willing to say honestly what you feel or need, even when it’s uncomfortable
• Clarity, confirming what’s actually been agreed, so both sides leave with the same understanding

He left the room with one small, achievable challenge: identify which of the four you’re weakest at, and commit to one concrete change, whether that’s finally having the difficult conversation you’ve been avoiding, or simply asking one more curious question before jumping to a conclusion.