From disagreements over the right strategy to heated recriminations following a project failure, conflicts are a regular part of business life. But most leaders and teams view conflict as a negative that should be avoided at all costs. When disputes do occur, leaders are often quick to apportion blame and identify the person, people, or operational issues responsible.

However, from a developmental standpoint, conflict can actually be seen as a positive. It offers the leaders and teams involved an opportunity to build resilience—what we define as the ability to maximize the learning from an adversity or setback.

Resilience, not confrontation

Developing a sustainable approach to building resilience in the face of change and conflict first requires leaders to understand that workplace dynamics are deeply interconnected. How leaders process stress and tension is affected by the specific contexts they’re operating in: the people with whom they work, and the different ways those individuals process their own stress. 

Leaders must identify other people’s anxieties and understand the deeper, sometimes unconscious, dynamics at play within the wider group. They need the courage to have conversations with the team about the discomfort being felt and make sense of experiences, beyond just trying to “fix the problem.”

Here’s how. 

It’s not (just) you: Understand the blend of individual and collective anxiety 

Whether related to a large global project or day-to-day operations, uncertainty creates anxiety. This affects leaders but also everyone else on the team. Therefore, it’s important for leaders to understand that what they feel is compounded by the anxiety of other team members. Empathetic leaders can be even more sensitive to the emotions of those around them. Such sensitivity can heighten their own anxiety as they absorb other people’s fears and mistake them for their own. 

A group’s anxiety typically comes from fears of survival and doubts about whether people truly care for one another. If these anxieties are suppressed, it can lead to interactions that seem polite enough on the surface but are emotionally distant or inauthentic. 

Multiple emotions feed into this anxiety: loneliness, disappointment, jealousy, and even anger. These can be hard or even painful to discuss. While it’s natural to guard against such emotions, it’s important not to label them as negative. When overdefensive teams moralize emotions as “good/positive” and “bad/negative,” that sends a message of, “I’m not allowed to feel this here,” which slowly and unconsciously leads people to become more distant and disconnected. 

Emotions are a reality within teams and organizations. If a leader can identify the emotions at play and use them to understand the deeper team dynamics underlying them, then they will also be better equipped to reduce the anxiety in the room. 

It’s not (just) them: Break habits by changing assumptions

Failure can make us feel incompetent and ashamed, so when something goes wrong, energy is often spent diverting the blame. A leader might criticize others for resisting their ideas, when the truth is the leader actually feels insecure about their own abilities. Such deflection is a way of protecting self-image, but it also makes it hard to back down. During conflicts, such emotions can create a stalemate as defense mechanism meets defense mechanism, while other team members feel helpless to intervene. 

Such stalemates are often a result of habitual assumptions. For instance, one person assumes someone questioning their methods is doubting their abilities. But it’s important to consider alternative perspectives: For example, someone raising a question might actually be feeling vulnerable about sharing their idea. 

Leaders should be aware of the assumptions they’re making, because this will define how they experience the situation, other individuals, and the events taking place. Questions worth asking include, “Why do they annoy me so much?” “How am I judging them through my own lens?” “Why do these biases make sense for this situation?” 

Asking such questions allows a leader to pause, reflect, control their reactions, and prevent natural defense mechanisms from kicking in. Exploring different interpretations opens up alternatives, suggests more possible interventions, and ultimately leads to different paths forward.

It’s (also) the elephant in the room: Courage for a confrontational conversation

Perhaps a project promises a new future for the company, but it also brings the threat of potential layoffs, a need for cost-cutting, or a sense of loss around old ways of working. Leaders may have to implement the project but could be reluctant because they don’t want to hurt their team. Everyone is aware of the elephant in the room, but no one dares talk about it. This can increase anxiety and disconnection, and might ultimately result in conflict or confrontation.

The third and most challenging step is to face up to the “elephant” through direct conversation. This must involve everyone in the team, not just the main protagonists. Onlookers aren’t as helpless as they think, because they also bring their anxieties and defense mechanisms to the conversation, which affects team dynamics.

The key is to get beyond the “What happened?” part of the conversation to tackle the “How did we feel?” dimension and explore “What these feelings made us do to each other.” This gives the group the scope to discuss unconscious fragilities and consider what might be at risk for individuals and the team. 

This requires a dedicated space where the focus is on reflection and sense-making. The goal is to consider how the situation and aftermath contribute to the deeper insecurities, hopes, and concerns felt by the group. In the process, other difficult feelings such as guilt, responsibility, or shame might also arise. This requires patience and the willingness to feel exposed and vulnerable, trusting that these feelings can dissipate once processed together. 

Resilience is relational

When leaders take time to analyze what’s really happening, they can see what they need to work on and when they should give the team space to process their own anxiety. On the relational side, helpful questions to ask are, “Why might we be feeling this stress in this situation, with these people? What might this tell us about our organizational dynamics?” 

Once you see these deeper dynamics, your understanding of the situation broadens. It’s no longer fixated on someone’s (or your own) defects but shifts to focusing on what else the team might have overlooked. The unpleasant sentiments are a shared experience that can tell you more about the dynamics the team is witnessing or going through together.  

Discontent, arguments, and disagreements are all part of daily work and leadership. If everyone saw things the same way, we would lose our diversity, creativity, and innovation. Don’t avoid this discomfort. Instead, learn to “argue well.” Create space to have those tough conversations, and trust that these conversations can help improve performance and development. These spaces are what build sustainable teams that can withstand challenges. See adversity as a process of learning, one that can ultimately strengthen team resilience.

Published Aug. 17, 2026, by INSEAD.