Addressing tensions

How can you express disagreement on a sensitive matter without avoiding the issue or damaging the professional relationship?

1960 € per session, excl. VAT

In short

A seven-hour day, excluding breaks, to prepare for a sensitive conversation, set out the facts, listen to a defensive reaction and negotiate concrete next steps. Participants alternate between role plays, observation and targeted reruns to adjust their behaviour in situations involving corrective feedback, disagreement or strained cooperation.

Why this training?

Putting off a disagreement often allows interpretations to replace facts. Conversely, starting with a reproach can trigger justification, withdrawal or a counter-attack without addressing the cooperation problem. Practice allows participants to test a formulation, observe its effect and revise it immediately. The work focuses as much on the framework established as on listening, pacing and the ability to maintain a clear request. Ongoing case study: At Ordalune Équipements, a fictitious organisation, a production manager needs to speak with a coordinator who has changed three priorities without notifying the workshop. Two shipments have been delayed. The coordinator disputes his responsibility and cites conflicting requests from sales. The conversation must clarify the facts and re-establish a coordination rule. Transfer to the workplace: Within fifteen days, prepare an appropriate professional conversation using the framework, then record the wording used, the reactions observed and the commitments obtained. Review this record with a trusted peer, without identifying data, to choose a behaviour to work on further.

Objectives of this training

  • Distinguish observable facts, interpretations and professional impacts.
  • Formulate an opening that specifies the subject and purpose of the conversation.
  • Paraphrase an objection before defending your position.
  • Maintain a boundary when faced with a defensive reaction.
  • Conclude with explicit commitments and agreed follow-up.

Who is it for and what are the prerequisites?

Roles and tasks concerned

  • Managers facing behavioural issues or unfulfilled commitments.
  • Project managers and professionals who need to address a cross-functional disagreement without hierarchical authority.

Prior skills

  • Have previous experience of a disagreement in a professional relationship.
  • Be willing to practise role plays and receive behavioural feedback.

What you will work on

  1. Identify the point of friction

    Objective: Define the problem to be addressed without accusation. Facts, interpretations, impacts; relational stakes and scope for decision-making.

  2. Prepare a clear opening

    Objective: Open the conversation firmly and respectfully. Timing, confidentiality, intention, facts and initial request.

  3. Listen without relinquishing the framework

    Objective: Explore an objection without losing sight of the subject. Open questions, paraphrasing and acknowledgement of feelings without automatic agreement.

  4. Work through defensive reactions

    Objective: Regulate your response under pressure. Silence, denial, counter-attack; slowing down, setting a boundary and suspending the conversation.

  5. Develop a workable outcome

    Objective: Turn the disagreement into verifiable commitments. Negotiable and non-negotiable matters; options, responsibilities and persistent disagreement.

  6. Conduct and rehearse the conversation

    Objective: Apply the approach in a complete conversation. Linking preparation, opening, exploration, request and conclusion.

What you take away

  • Preparation framework covering facts, impacts, intention and request.
  • Observation checklist for behaviour during conversations.
  • Revised wording for objections and boundaries.
  • Commitment plan and review of transfer to the workplace.

Method and assessment

  • Brief teaching inputs followed by simulations and role plays based on the ongoing case study.
  • Structured observation and peer feedback using a shared checklist.
  • Guided debrief: what worked, what will be adjusted, individual commitment.
  • Preparation: Describe a fictitious or anonymised situation, without names or details that could enable identification. Identify a phrase that is difficult to say and a personal behaviour to work on; use only materials and tools authorised by the organisation.

Observable criteria: The opening sets out two facts without judging the person. ; An objection is paraphrased and understanding is checked. ; The request describes an expected behaviour rather than a personal quality. ; A defensive reaction receives a response without escalation or abandoning the subject. ; The conclusion specifies who does what and when progress will be reviewed..

Frequently asked questions

Do you have to recount a personal conflict?

No. The fictitious case allows you to practise without exposing a real relationship.

How is feedback given?

Feedback describes an observed statement or behaviour, its effect and an alternative to test.

What should you do if the other person refuses to talk?

Clarify the refusal, propose an appropriate framework and announce the next step within your remit.

Is this approach suitable for a situation involving harassment?

It does not replace protection and reporting procedures; contact the appropriate people.

Last updated: