Sales promised four weeks. Production needs eight. The meeting starts in five minutes.
You are Head of Operations and you oversee both Sales and Production. This morning you learned that Sales
committed a major client to a four-week delivery, without checking with Production. When you asked
Production, they said the work realistically needs eight weeks if quality is going to hold.
Neither team flagged it before the commitment was made. Alex, your Sales lead, was afraid of losing the
deal. Jordan, your Production lead, assumed Sales would check in first. Now the gap is yours to close.
You have called an emergency meeting with both leads. Alex looks defensive. Jordan looks frustrated. They
are sitting across from each other, the tension thick. How you handle the next half hour will either
prevent this from spiralling into a wider team conflict, or let it fester.
Three decisions. Five minutes. How well do you mediate?
start
forum
assignment
handshake
sports_score
Opening the meeting
You walk in. Alex and Jordan are already there, sitting opposite each other. Nobody has spoken yet. The
first thing out of your mouth will set the tone for everything that follows: how each of them shows up,
what they will say honestly, and whether you end the next half hour with a workable solution or two
defended positions.
How do you open the conversation?
A
'Before we jump to solutions, I need to understand both sides. Alex, what drove
the four-week commitment? Jordan, what are your real constraints? Let's start by understanding what
actually matters to each of you.'
B
'Alex, you were trying to win business — that is your job. Jordan, you are
protecting quality — that is yours. Let's not dwell on what happened. Let's focus on finding a way
forward that works for both of you.'
C
'I am going to be direct: Sales made a commitment without checking capacity.
Production needs the real time. We either tell the client the truth or we find a way to deliver it.
What is possible?'
D
'We have a real problem here. Sales overcommitted without checking capacity, and
Production did not flag it sooner. Let's focus on what we can actually deliver and what the client
truly needs, not on blame.'
start
forum
assignment
handshake
sports_score
Opening the meeting
Most workplace conflicts are arguments about the wrong thing. Alex and Jordan
have arrived in the room with positions: four weeks versus eight. Underneath are interests: keeping the
client and protecting quality. The first move you make decides which conversation actually happens, and
whether each of them feels safe enough to say what is really going on.
Option A
'Before we jump to solutions, I need to understand both sides. What drove the
commitment? What are the real constraints?'
This is the textbook mediator's opening. You move the conversation off positions
(4 weeks vs 8 weeks) and onto interests (winning the client vs sustainable quality), and you ask each
party for the assumption that drove the choice they made alone. Both feel heard before either has to
defend, which is the only state from which a real solution can be built. The principle: insight and
relationship come before understanding and influencing, and influencing comes before action. Skip the
first step and the next two get harder, not easier.
Option B
'Alex, you were trying to win business. Jordan, you are protecting quality.
Let's focus on finding a way forward that works for both of you.'
Validating both intentions is a strong move and it lowers the temperature in the
room. The risk is that you have skipped the why. Recognising what each was trying to do is not the same
as understanding why they acted alone, and without that you will design a solution to the symptom rather
than the cause. A useful step, but only after each party has been asked to surface the assumption behind
the choice.
Option C
'Sales made a commitment without checking. Production needs the real time. What
is possible?'
You have framed the problem clearly and moved fast, but you have also positioned
yourself as the decider. Alex and Jordan will now wait to be told what to do rather than work the problem
with each other. The conversation becomes about what you decide, not what they can commit to together,
and the agreement that comes out of it tends to be performative rather than owned.
Option D
'Sales overcommitted and Production did not flag it. Let's focus on what we can
deliver, not on blame.'
Saying 'not blame' after assigning fault is the classic mediator misstep. Alex
hears the criticism and goes defensive. Jordan feels vindicated but resentful that the relationship is
now set up as one of fault and exception. The room defends positions instead of exploring interests, and
you have lost the openness you needed to do anything else useful in the next thirty minutes.
start
forum
assignment
handshake
sports_score
Designing the solution
The temperature has come down. Alex has talked through the client pressure that drove the four-week
commitment. Jordan has explained what eight weeks actually buys and why a forced four would compromise
quality. Both are now engaged rather than defended. The room is ready for the next move.
'OK. So Alex, you committed because we cannot afford to lose this client. Jordan, you pushed back because
the timeline puts the work at risk. We agree the four-week promise as it stands does not work. Where do we
go from here?'
How do you move the room toward a solution?
A
'Let's explore what is actually possible. Alex, what does the client truly need
for week four, and what is nice-to-have? Jordan, if we brought in contractors for specific pieces, what
timeline becomes realistic? What does that do to quality, and how do we mitigate it?'
B
'Before we design the solution, I want to test something. Are you both genuinely
willing to find an outcome that is better than what either of you walked in with? And can each of you
explain the other's real concerns back to them, to their satisfaction?'
C
'Here is the solution. Phased delivery: Alex, you give the client core features
at week four — they get a win. Jordan, you have until week six for the full quality build. We tell the
client this is the sustainable approach. Are we agreed?'
D
'We hire contractors to cover the overflow. That way we keep the four-week
deadline, the internal team does not burn out, and everyone is happy. Let's just make this happen.'
start
forum
assignment
handshake
sports_score
Designing the solution
Once interests are on the table, the next risk is jumping to the wrong shape
of solution. The fastest answer often touches one lever and ignores the others. The strongest answer pulls
on scope, resource, quality, time and strategy together, and is co-created by the people who have to live
with it rather than handed to them.
Option A
'Let's explore what is actually possible — scope, resource, timeline, quality,
mitigation.'
This is what good problem-solving looks like in a conflict. You move
systematically across the levers a team has at its disposal: scope (does the client need everything at
week four?), resource (do contractors take pressure off?), time (what does phased delivery buy?) and
quality (what is the risk and how do we mitigate?). Alex and Jordan co-design the answer, which means
both are invested in it. The solution that emerges is rarely either party's opening position, and almost
always better than either.
Option B
'Before we design the solution, are you both willing to find an outcome that is
better than what either of you walked in with?'
A genuine readiness test. Asking whether each can articulate the other's
position, to that person's satisfaction, is one of the strongest moves a mediator has. It surfaces
whether the room is actually ready to negotiate or whether one party is still defending. The reason it
sits second rather than first is sequence: once interests are out and the temperature is down, the
higher-leverage move is to start co-designing. Use this when you suspect the room is not yet ready.
Option C
'Here is the solution: phased delivery, week four core and week six full. Are
we agreed?'
The shape of the solution is sensible and probably the right answer in the end.
The problem is that you have decided it for them. Alex and Jordan agree because you are the boss, but
neither has co-created the plan. If Jordan privately thinks week six is still tight, the agreement is
performative. Authority decisions ship faster, but they tend to leak commitment when the work gets
hard.
Option D
'Let's just hire contractors and keep the four-week deadline.'
Single-lever thinking. You have reached for the resource lever without exploring
scope, time or quality, and you have skipped the question of what contractors actually buy. Two weeks
in, the contractors are still ramping up, the internal team is spending more time onboarding than
building, and quality is wobbling. Adding people to a tight timeline rarely makes it shorter, and you
have spent the goodwill in the room on a fix that does not hold.
start
forum
assignment
handshake
sports_score
Closing the agreement
Alex and Jordan have agreed a phased plan. The client conversation is teed up and the work is moving.
The room feels resolved. There is one more thing to do: the conflict you just mediated is the second of
its kind in six months, and a verbal agreement at the end of a tense meeting has a habit of fading by
the next deadline.
'Alright, we have a plan we can ship. Before we leave the room, I want to talk about how we make sure
this does not happen again, and how we hold each other to what we have just agreed.'
How do you close?
A
'Going forward, every commitment over two weeks goes through a structured weekly
capacity meeting between Sales and Production. We use Conditions of Satisfaction so each commitment is
clear: what gets done, who is on it, when, how we will know it is met, and the protocol for early
warning. Follow the process, full trust. Break it, we address it once, then move forward with a clean
slate.'
B
'I am going to take time to design something with both teams' input. I want
Sales to understand Production's real constraints, and Production to understand the client
relationship stakes. We will build the system together so it has genuine buy-in from both sides.'
C
'This worked because we talked it through. Going forward, I want you two
meeting weekly to sync on capacity and pipeline, so future commitments get made together rather than
in silos. No formal process — just keep the dialogue open.'
D
'Sales needs better training on realistic timelines. Production needs to be more
proactive about flagging capacity issues. We will handle this separately with each team.'
start
forum
assignment
handshake
sports_score
Closing the agreement
Resolutions in the room are easy. Resolutions that survive the next deadline
take more. The work of closing well is twofold: convert the verbal agreement into a structured commitment
both parties can be held to, and address the system that produced the conflict in the first place. Skip
either and you will be back in this meeting in three months.
Option A
'Weekly capacity meeting, Conditions of Satisfaction, clear protocol for breach
and forgiveness.'
This is what closing well looks like. You have addressed the system (a weekly
meeting where commitments are made together rather than in silos), the structure (Conditions of
Satisfaction make each agreement specific and testable), and the boundary (a clear, fair response to
breach so trust holds). Three months on, the same near-miss surfaces in the weekly meeting and gets
handled before it becomes a crisis. The principle: in any agreement, the missing ingredient is usually
specificity about what 'done' looks like and what happens if it is not.
Option B
'I will take time to design something with both teams' input.'
The instinct is right: a system designed with the people who have to live with
it has more buy-in than one imposed. The risk is timing. While you spend two weeks co-designing, the
same dynamic that produced this conflict can produce another one, and you will be back in the room
without the system in place. Strong on engagement, weak on speed. Better paired with a lightweight
interim protocol while the longer design happens.
Option C
'Meet weekly to sync on capacity and pipeline. No formal process, just keep the
dialogue open.'
Better than nothing, and often where these meetings start. The risk is process
fidelity: without explicit ground rules or a definition of what 'done' means, the meeting drifts.
Sometimes it is strategy, sometimes it is venting, and there is no protocol for what happens if a
commitment slips. Three months on, a new Sales hire makes a commitment without Production in the room,
and the meeting did not prevent it because there was nothing explicit to prevent it with.
Option D
'Sales needs training on timelines. Production needs to flag capacity earlier.
Handle separately.'
You have addressed the symptoms in two siloed conversations and missed the
system that produced them. The real issue is not what either team knows; it is that there is no
structure for them to make commitments together. Six months on, a new client opportunity surfaces, the
same dynamic plays out, and the same meeting is back on your calendar. Individual training without
systemic change is one of the most common ways recurring conflicts persist.
start
forum
assignment
handshake
sports_score
Further learning
This simulation draws on frameworks from our Cohesion programme on people leadership and team conflict.
Each one shaped the choices you just worked through.
The trust cycle
Insight and relationship, then understanding and influencing, then action. The order behind the three
decisions you just made: open with interests, design the solution together, close with a structured
commitment.
Explore the trust cycle →
Key change management principles
Including 'rapport before intervention' and 'the right intervention at the right time'. The
sequencing behind opening the meeting on interests rather than fault.
Explore the principles →
Take it further with Cohesion
Cohesion is our full high-performing teams simulation. A leadership team works under pressure over an
immersive day or two, navigating conflict, alignment, decision-making and commitment so participants
come away with a felt sense of what builds team performance and what corrodes it. The mediation you
just worked through with Alex and Jordan sits inside a much larger picture of how teams stay on the
same page when the work gets hard.
Micro simulation · schedule 5 min