Last month, I was reading Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI by Yuval Noah Harari.
At one point, Harari discusses global cooperation, and while I can’t recall the exact context, the way he framed the idea struck a chord. I immediately thought about conflict management—not just on a global scale, but in our everyday lives: in companies, within teams, and even among friends or family. (Congress applies too, but let’s not go there)
Harari makes a compelling point: for global cooperation to be effective, two things are required, and here, I’ll address one: a commitment to some sort of agreed-upon rules. These rules don’t deny the uniqueness of each nation (or entity) or the loyalty people feel toward their own. Instead, they regulate the relations between nations, ensuring some sense of order over chaos.
Harari offers a powerful analogy: the World Cup. Two separate teams compete, each with unique strengths, strategies, and fierce loyalty from fans. But without the rules governing the game, there would be no World Cup. The rules allow both competition and collaboration to coexist—teams get to showcase their individuality, but they come together on the same field, bound by shared guidelines.
To me, this concept is as relevant in conflict management within a company, a team, or even a household as it is on the global stage. Look, conflict is inevitable. It’s just human nature to clash over different perspectives, goals, and priorities. But resolving conflict effectively requires a willingness to “play by the rules.” This is also why companies with a clear and communicated vision (a form of rules) and accountability to the vision always win over those that are loosey goosey or unclear and unaccountable.
What happens if there are no rules? Then those involved in the conflict must first acknowledge the issue, sit down together, and agree on some ground rules. These become the framework for moving forward—not by erasing differences, but by regulating how those differences are addressed.
For example, imagine a project team at work where two members consistently butt heads – a fairly typical scenario. Each has their own “playbook,” prioritizing what they believe is most important for the project. The tension boils over into team meetings, making progress nearly impossible, and ultimately, impacting team productivity (no matter how good a player might be at their job this impacts the outcomes of the whole – believe me, I have been on both ends of this this situation, and I fall graciously on my sword for the times when being right was more important than the win-win).
The solution isn’t to pretend the conflict doesn’t exist—it’s to set ground rules. Perhaps it’s agreeing to let the project’s stated objectives (ex: a clear vision for the team or company) serve as the ultimate guidepost for decisions. Or committing to a structure for discussions: one person shares their perspective, uninterrupted and listened to with a focus on understanding their perspective, followed by a response. The key is creating shared guidelines that allow the team to engage productively, not destructively.
Conflict isn’t the enemy. It’s a signal that something needs attention. But without rules—or a willingness to create them—conflict can spiral out of control. The best teams and leaders don’t avoid conflict; they navigate it with structure, intention, and mutual respect.
So, next time you’re faced with a conflict, ask yourself: what rules—or ground rules—can we agree to?
I’d love to hear your thoughts. How have shared rules helped you navigate conflict, whether in the workplace or in your personal life?
Comments