Team Conflict? Check the Structure, Not the Personalities
Most workplace conflict isn’t personal. It’s structural.
One of the most common themes we uncover in organizational assessments isn’t poor intent or difficult personalities. It’s unclear roles and responsibilities.
When people aren’t sure who owns what, conflict follows.
The Research
The research is clear on this. A 2001 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Applied Psychology found that role ambiguity is significantly associated with emotional exhaustion, lower job satisfaction, and interpersonal strain. In other words, when expectations aren’t clear, stress and tension increase. The American Psychological Association’s 2012 Work and Well-Being Survey identified unclear job expectations as a significant source of workplace stress. And Gallup’s 2013 State of the American Workplace report showed that employees who strongly agree they know what’s expected of them at work are more than twice as likely to be engaged.
In our organizational assessments, this issue shows up again and again. Teams describe friction between two individuals. On the surface, it looks personal. But when we dig deeper, the root cause is structural confusion. Two capable people believe they’re accountable for the same outcome. Or each assumes the other is responsible, and nothing gets done.
Missed deadlines. Duplicated work. Resentment. Blame.
Leaders often treat these situations as interpersonal conflicts to mediate. In reality, they’re leadership issues to clarify.
If two people are in conflict over ownership, it’s not just their issue to resolve. It’s the manager’s responsibility to define roles, decision rights, and accountability. Without that clarity, the conflict won’t go away. It will simply resurface later, even with different people.
Clarity isn’t a soft skill. It’s a structural discipline.
When roles are clear, collaboration improves. Accountability strengthens. And much of what looks like personality conflict simply disappears.
The Tools
If this is a challenge your team is experiencing, implementing a role clarity tool can help. One of the most widely used is the RACI framework, developed in the 1950s and popularized through project management methodologies. RACI stands for Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed. For any key project or decision, you define:
Who is Responsible for doing the work
Who is Accountable for the final outcome
Who should be Consulted
Who should be Informed
By mapping this out for your top priorities, you’ll quickly surface overlaps and gaps that may be fueling conflict.
Some teams find alternative models even more helpful. DARCI adds a Decision role to clarify who makes the final call. MOCHA, developed by The Management Center, stands for Manager, Owner, Consulted, Helper, and Approver and can be particularly useful for clarifying leadership dynamics.
The specific framework matters less than the discipline. What matters is that everyone knows who owns what.
If conflict is emerging between two team members, don’t start with mediation. Start by mapping the work.
Want these insights sent straight to your inbox? Sign up for the newsletter below!
