Conflict Interview Preparation Guide

Download PDF

Most jobs require you to get along with different types of people. Some of your coworkers, managers, and/or clients will turn out to be idiots, slackers, and/or weirdos. Disagreements are bound to arise.
To succeed at work, you must be able to deal with conflict professionally. This is particularly true in certain jobs (project management, customer service, law) and in certain company cultures.
Your interviewer wants to get a sense of how you will respond to conflict.

Candidate should appear to know how to convince others that their point is right. Sees conflict as natural. Never personalizes it, but explains the issues involved forcefully; stands up for what he believes is best for the business in a logical and reasonable manner.

You basically want to hear that they do not like to point fingers at others; that they try to stop the mistake from happening again by making his/her colleague aware of their error in a non blame educational manner.

Job seeker should explain that they put the team first; should not appear easily intimidated; seeks to resolve differences; does not personalize conflicts.

Answer given should show you that the candidate can stick with it and work through negativity quickly.

Job seeker should appear to know how to resolve issues and uses it as an opportunity to reinforce interpersonal relationships; concentrates on the issues and never personalizes things.

Disagreeing with a supervisor or professor does not make you unemployable. The interviewer wants to know how you expressed your disagreement and whether the conflict caused an impasse or a disruption in the work environment.

Candidate should show that they are helpful in resolving conflicts by understanding each co-workers view of the situation.

Job seeker should explain that seeking clarification is alright; that they try to clarify things to make sure the job is done right; should see conflict as natural and not a personal attack.

Consider situations in past jobs that involved arguments or disagreements. A miscommunication with a coworker may have angered you because it led to a negative review from your supervisor. A supervisor's unwillingness to give you time off may have caused you to miss your friend's wedding. Scan your work history for such examples.

Ask for clarification about the context of the interview question when necessary. In being asked to describe your usual response to conflict, you may be wondering if the interviewer wants to hear an example from any aspect of your life or strictly in the work environment. Whenever possible, avoid examples about your personal life and focus on work-related instances.

First of all, when responding to conflict resolution questions, answer with confidence. You're likely being considered for a management or supervisory position where you will frequently be required to work in teams, delegate responsibilities, and handle difficult problems (and employees). Only confident candidates need apply.

At a previous job, I was responsible for resolving a conflict between two team members who could no longer work effectively together. Their relationship began affecting the productivity of other employees, as well as their team. The first thing I did was separate them to calm the situation. I then proceeded to meet together with both parties to discuss the problem in a calm and controlled setting. I assumed control of the discussion since emotions frequently trump reason during disputes between two people and made it clear that a compromise must be reached. One of my main objectives during the meeting was to understand the perspectives of both parties without siding with either one. At first, this was difficult since each party presented their arguments without considering other perspectives. To counter this, I made it clear to each party that changes must be made since the status quo was unworkable. Shortly thereafter, we agreed to a workable solution. Before concluding the meeting, I emphasized that during future disagreements each party must act considerately and professionally, and avoid getting emotional. After our meeting, work resumed as normal and the overall work atmosphere became more pleasant.

I'm proactive. In other words, I monitor situations closely to prevent minor problems from escalating into major ones. In most cases, minor problems can be resolved by simply meeting individually with affected parties. It's not a good idea to ignore a problem in hopes that it will resolve itself. Some managers avoid confrontation, which often results in bigger problems that are more difficult to handle. Effective leaders are aware of many factors, including jealously, individual differences, and other issues that create conflicts among employees. Therefore, effective managers must meet individually with feuding employees and suggest workable solutions.

I have had differences of opinion with previous managers. Our disagreements were not significant, but some had to be confronted and resolved. I have learned that two parties typically quarrel when each one refuses to consider the other's perspective. Therefore, I asked the manager I disagreed with to explain his or her perspective, and then to consider my point of view. This way, we were able to take into account each other's perspective and come to an agreeable compromise. When a compromise could not be reached, I accepted my manager's decision. Regardless of individual perspectives, managers are responsible for setting policy, and subordinates are responsible for executing it.

Begin by acknowledging the emotions. Take a minute and take stock of your own emotions. Name them. Are you angry, sad, happy, surprised, disappointed? Usually there are many emotions happening simultaneously. Acknowledge as many as you can. Next, identify the underlying causes. Often there's a story connected to the emotion that's causing you to react but has nothing to do with the current event. If you can identify the story (usually an old, familiar one), you can bring some awareness to the situation. The awareness tells you how much of the emotion has to do with the current event and how much of it is from the past event. Once you know, you can choose how to utilize the energy. For example, with a huge emotion, you might be tempted to hide it or to act it out on the other person. When you get a sense about why the event is so charged, you'll regain some balance and be able to make a wiser decision about how to (or even if you want to) have a conversation with the person instead.

Acknowledge the other person's feelings as well. Consider what story they might be telling themselves, and inquire about it. For example: "You sound upset (acknowledgment). Are you? Have I said something that caused you to react this way (inquiry)?" It just takes practice, like anything else.

Most books on this topic, though they may speak differently about them, identify the same basic skills for handling difficult conversations:

1. Start with yourself. Acknowledge your feelings and gain control of them. Breathe. Identify your desired outcome for the conversation and try to guess at theirs. What do they want? What do you want?

2. Be curious. Inquire. Find out how they see the situation. Ask useful questions and listen. Don't judge or make assumptions. Don't take it personally. This is their story and they can tell it whatever way they want. Support them.

3. Acknowledge their story and their feelings. Validate their concerns. This doesn't mean you agree. It means that you hear them. It's a tremendous gift and moves the conversation in a useful direction. You get a gift, too. You learn a lot about what's important to this person, which will be helpful when you begin to look for solutions.

4. Advocate for yourself. What is your story? What are they not seeing? Explain how the situation looks from your perspective. Go slowly and don't assume.

5. Build solutions based on new understanding. As you begin to listen and talk, information comes out that will help you co-create effective solutions with your partner.

Job seeker should appear to be able to reason logically and forcibly argue for what is best for the company; should be respectful to, but not intimidated by higher management.

Candidate should appear to know how to convince others that their point is right. Sees conflict as natural. Never personalizes it, but explains the issues involved forcefully; stands up for what he believes is best for the business in a logical and reasonable manner.

Answer given should show you that the candidate can stick with it and work through negativity quickly.

Job seeker should appear to know how to resolve issues and uses it as an opportunity to reinforce interpersonal relationships; concentrates on the issues and never personalizes things.

You basically want to hear that they do not like to point fingers at others; that they try to stop the mistake from happening again by making his/her colleague aware of their error in a non blame educational manner.

Job seeker should explain that seeking clarification is alright; that they try to clarify things to make sure the job is done right; should see conflict as natural and not a personal attack.

Job seeker should explain that they put the team first; should not appear easily intimidated; seeks to resolve differences; does not personalize conflicts.