It usually starts like this: “We have some tensions among a few key people on the team.”
When leaders say “tensions,” they often mean conflict. And when they say conflict, they often mean communication breakdown.
But more often than not, what’s underneath isn’t tone.
It’s power.
Tension is rarely just about personality differences. It’s about uneven risk.
- Who can speak plainly without consequence?
- Who is labeled “difficult”?
- Who is protected by positional authority?
- Who absorbs impact quietly to survive?
Conflict does not unfold on a level playing field.
The Myth of Neutral Conflict
In many institutions, conflict processes are designed as if everyone enters from the same starting line.
Procedures assume neutrality. Policies emphasize compliance. Conversations center “both sides.”
But conflict is almost always shaped by:
- positional authority (manager, faculty, staff, student)
- social identity (race, disability, gender, Indigeneity)
- access to credibility and institutional protection
- historical patterns of marginalization
- who carries reputational risk
When we treat conflict as purely interpersonal, we erase these dynamics. And when we erase power, we often reproduce harm.
Conflict Is an Equity Issue
One of the most important shifts in conflict work is this:
Conflict is not separate from equity work. It is equity work.
Power conflicts, overt or subtle, show up in everyday interactions.
They show up when someone names racism and is told they are “too emotional.” When access needs are framed as inconvenience. When junior staff are advised to “wait their turn.” When disabled employees are asked to be “flexible” within systems never designed with them in mind.
Conflict engagement without an equity lens often rewards comfort over accountability.
That is not neutrality. That is design.
What Changes When We Name Power
A premise I’ve learned to hold steady: Conflict is natural. Its impacts are not evenly distributed.
In one consultation, a leader described the situation this way:
“We have a team member who keeps escalating things. It’s creating tension.”
What had happened was this:
A racialized staff member raised concerns about inequitable workload distribution. She documented patterns. She named impact. She asked for structural change. Her manager described her as “intense.” The manager described themselves as “overwhelmed.” The team described the environment as “tense.”
No one described the inequity as the source of the conflict. No one felt safe naming race as part of the dynamic. The tension wasn’t caused by tone. It was caused by power and identity meeting accountability.
In another consultation, a department described “persistent friction” with one employee.
The employee had requested predictable meeting times and written follow-ups accommodations connected to a documented disability. Colleagues described them as “rigid.” The leader described it as “a personality clash.”
But the friction wasn’t interpersonal. It was structural.
The team valued spontaneity and informal decision-making. The employee needed clarity and consistency, and was entitled to accessible process and accommodation.
Instead of redesigning the system, the system attempted to correct the person.
Conflict, again, was framed as communication. It was design.
The Practice
When we integrate equity and restorative principles into conflict engagement, we can widen the frame:
- from “Who violated policy?” to “Who was impacted and how?”
- from individual blame to structural pattern
- from punishment alone to repair and accountability
- from compliance to relationship and culture
This doesn’t abandon due process. It widens the lens.
It adds nuance to procedure and asks:
- What structures made this likely?
- Whose risk was higher?
- What repair is needed – individually and systemically?
And this is where capacity comes in.
I often see leaders visibly relieved when they realize they’re not being asked to eliminate conflict.
They’re being asked to build capacity inside it. That looks like:
- strengthening emotional regulation under strain
- separating discomfort from actual harm
- recognizing unequal risk before responding
- slowing down decisions when power is uneven
- designing processes where dissent doesn’t require personal sacrifice
- practicing dialogue over debate
- holding space for repair rather than defensiveness
Conflict capacity isn’t about smoothing things over.
It’s about staying present when tension rises without defaulting to control, avoidance, or urgency.
It’s about understanding that equity work without conflict skills becomes performative. And conflict skills without an equity lens can deepen harm.
Leadership, especially in complex institutions, requires both.
A Hard Truth
There’s a myth that inclusive workplaces are harmonious workplaces.
In my experience, the opposite is often true. Inclusive workplaces surface more tension because more people feel able to speak.
The question isn’t whether conflict exists. The question is whether leaders are equipped to carry it responsibly.
Because here is what we cannot ignore: If conflict repeatedly exposes the same people to greater risk, that is not accidental.
It reflects how power is operating.
And changing that requires leaders willing to build the skills and redesign the conditions that make engagement more equitable.
Conflict is not neutral. But neither is silence.
And the difference between harm and growth often rests on whether capacity has been built before the moment arrives.
-sd
Equity and Conflict work is authored in partnership with Ashley J. Moore