Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Diagnose the Conflict and Document Root Causes
1 week
When a significant team conflict arises — between team members, across teams, or between a team and leadership — conduct a structured diagnosis before attempting resolution. This means holding separate one-on-one conversations with each party, identifying the positions (what each party says they want), the underlying interests (why they want it), and the factual versus interpretive elements of the dispute. Document the diagnosis without judgement on any party, and identify the root causes that must be addressed for the conflict to actually be resolved.
Proof required
Submit the conflict diagnosis document (min 500 words, anonymised for the parties involved) covering positions, interests, factual vs interpretive elements, and identified root causes. A manager or HR partner must confirm the diagnosis was produced before resolution was attempted.
What gets checked
- Positions and interests are distinguished for each party — not treated as the same thing
- Factual and interpretive elements are separated — what is verifiable versus what is perception
- Diagnosis was produced before resolution was attempted — not retrospectively
Common mistakes
- Diagnosis skips the separate one-on-ones — the submitter forms a view from public conflict dynamics alone
- Positions and interests are conflated — resolution targets what each party says they want, not what they actually need
- Diagnosis is written after resolution — it rationalises rather than informs the approach
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter to explain the difference between the position and the interest of one party
- Confirm the diagnosis was produced before resolution was attempted
- Check that the document is genuinely anonymised — no identifying information about the parties
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Facilitate a Resolution Session
1 week
Facilitate a structured resolution session with the conflicting parties. The session must include: agreement on ground rules (what is in and out of bounds for the conversation), each party stating their interests (not positions), collaborative problem-solving toward solutions that address interests on both sides, and a documented outcome — either a specific resolution agreement or a clear statement of what is still unresolved and what happens next. Follow up within one week to confirm the agreement is holding.
Proof required
Submit the resolution session plan (agenda, ground rules), anonymised session notes showing each element was completed, the documented outcome (resolution agreement or escalation plan), and a one-week follow-up note confirming the status. An HR partner, senior manager, or executive sponsor must confirm the session ran.
What gets checked
- Ground rules were set and documented before the substantive conversation started
- Each party stated their interests — not just restated their positions
- Outcome is a specific documented agreement or a specific escalation path — not 'the conversation went well'
Common mistakes
- Session begins without ground rules — conversation deteriorates into positional argument
- Session is a mediation of positions rather than interests — the root cause is not addressed
- Outcome is vague — 'we agreed to work better together' is not an outcome
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter to describe the documented outcome — what specifically was agreed?
- Confirm the session ran with an HR partner, senior manager, or executive sponsor present or confirmed
- Check that the one-week follow-up was conducted and the status is documented
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Reflect and Share Conflict Resolution Learning
2 weeks
Within 30 days of the resolution, produce a conflict resolution retrospective (anonymised) covering: what the root causes were, what approach was used and why, what worked and what didn't, and what you would do differently next time. Present the retrospective (with all identifying information removed) to a peer management group or team leads forum, and document the discussion. The retrospective is for learning, not blame.
Proof required
Submit the anonymised conflict resolution retrospective (min 500 words covering all four elements) and notes from the peer management group presentation showing questions raised and your responses.
What gets checked
- Retrospective is genuinely anonymised — no party can be identified from the account
- What didn't work is addressed honestly — not only the successful elements
- Peer group presentation provoked discussion — at least two questions from peers are documented
Common mistakes
- Retrospective is written but never shared — the learning stays private
- Retrospective is positive only — only the successful elements are documented
- Presentation audience is too junior — no genuine peer challenge or alternative perspective
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter what they would do differently in a similar conflict next time
- Confirm the presentation was to a peer management group — not junior reports
- Check the retrospective addresses what didn't work — not only what succeeded
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Part of