Concept
Split the conflict into shared facts, disputed facts and interpretations
A conflict gets smaller when different kinds of disagreement stop pretending to be one thing.
When it fits
- The disagreement feels total even though some parts may already be common ground.
When to avoid it
- Some disputes involve contested standards or values that cannot be resolved by additional evidence alone.
The idea
Create three columns. Shared facts need no further debate. Disputed facts need evidence or a decision process. Interpretations need perspective-taking and may remain different. Solve each category with the right tool instead of arguing all three at once.
An example
Both sides agree a file arrived at 16:20; they dispute whether 16:20 violated the agreed cutoff and interpret the delay differently.
Check your result
At least one part of the conflict has a clear resolution method: verify, negotiate or accept differing interpretation.
Keep this limit in mind
- Some disputes involve contested standards or values that cannot be resolved by additional evidence alone.
Connected ideas
Use beforeAsk for the future condition both sides could live with
Evidence and sources
Acas informal-meeting guidance recommends preparing what to say, gathering relevant evidence, considering what would fix the problem, listening to the other side and recording what is agreed.
A workplace meeting may carry legal or policy requirements beyond these general practices.
Informal meetings · Preparing; at the meeting; putting things in writing
Acas mediator guidance describes hearing participants separately, allowing each account without interruption in a joint meeting, summarising areas of agreement and disagreement, and checking that any agreement is workable and recorded.
This is a mediation process example, not a claim that every difficult conversation requires these stages.
How Acas mediators work · Separate meeting; Joint meeting; If you reach an agreement