Help me prepare a fair, practical conflict-resolution plan. Do not decide who is right from incomplete information; help me separate observed facts, interpretations, impact, and requested changes. Context and working relationship: [CONTEXT AND ROLES] What happened, with dates and observable examples: [FACTS AND TIMELINE] Each person’s stated perspective or concerns: [PERSPECTIVES] Relevant agreements, policies, or prior feedback: [RELEVANT STANDARDS] What a workable outcome must protect: [DESIRED OUTCOME] Produce a plan with these sections: 1) neutral situation summary, limited to verified facts; 2) issues to resolve, framed as behaviors, decisions, process gaps, or expectations rather than personality traits; 3) likely interests and constraints for each party, clearly labeled as confirmed or to test; 4) a 30-45 minute conversation agenda; 5) opening language I can use; 6) 6-8 neutral questions that invite specifics; 7) options for agreements, owners, deadlines, and evidence of completion; and 8) a short written follow-up template. Use an approach that allows each person uninterrupted time to describe impact, tests shared understanding before problem-solving, and addresses the future behavior or process needed. Include a private pre-conversation check for power imbalance, retaliation risk, discrimination or harassment allegations, threats, safety concerns, or required HR involvement. If any is present, advise pausing informal mediation and following the relevant formal process. Before answering, flag assertions that are hearsay, vague labels, or unsupported assumptions. Check that each proposed agreement is specific enough to observe and has a responsible owner. Ask up to 3 clarifying questions only if a required input is missing.
Fill in
| Placeholder | What to enter | Example |
|---|---|---|
| [CONTEXT AND ROLES] | Describe the team, each person’s role, reporting relationship, and why the relationship matters. | A product manager and engineering lead working on the same release; neither manages the other, but both report to the VP of Product. |
| [FACTS AND TIMELINE] | List dated, observable events and examples without interpreting motives. | On Aug. 12 and Aug. 19, requirements changed after sprint planning; the engineer said the changes were not discussed before work began. |
| [PERSPECTIVES] | Enter what each person has said they experienced, need, or disagree with. | The product manager says customer feedback required fast changes; the engineering lead says repeated changes caused rework and missed estimates. |
| [RELEVANT STANDARDS] | Paste relevant team agreements, policies, role expectations, or prior documented feedback. | The team expects changes after sprint planning to be documented, sized, and approved by both leads. |
| [DESIRED OUTCOME] | Describe what must improve and any constraints that a resolution needs to respect. | Restore a workable release process, protect customer commitments, and make escalation rules clear. |
How to use
- Write the timeline from records, meeting notes, or messages, and remove conclusions about intent.
- Paste both perspectives as accurately as possible, including points you do not share.
- Use the agenda to facilitate the conversation, then document only agreements that both parties can confirm.
- Follow up with: “Turn the agreed actions below into a neutral recap with owners, dates, and a review point in two weeks.”
Variations
Manager mediation
Use this when you are facilitating a conflict between two direct reports.
Prepare a manager-led mediation plan for [PARTY A ROLE] and [PARTY B ROLE]. Facts: [FACTS]. Each perspective: [PERSPECTIVES]. Team expectations: [STANDARDS]. Return a neutral opening, separate pre-meeting questions, a 45-minute agenda, questions that surface examples and impact, and a written agreement template. Do not diagnose personalities or force agreement on intent. Flag power imbalance, retaliation, discrimination, harassment, threats, or policy allegations for HR or formal handling before mediation.
Repair conversation
Use this when you need to address your part in a conflict directly.
Help me prepare a repair conversation with [OTHER PERSON AND RELATIONSHIP]. My actions and the facts are: [MY ACTIONS]. Their stated impact is: [THEIR IMPACT]. The change I can realistically make is: [COMMITMENT]. Draft a 150-220 word opening that names my behavior without excuses, acknowledges impact without claiming to know their feelings, invites correction, and proposes a specific next step. Add five listening questions. Do not create an apology for actions I did not describe.
Team norms reset
Use this after repeated friction points across a team.
Design a 60-minute team working-agreements session for [TEAM AND PURPOSE]. Recurring friction: [PATTERNS]. Current ways of working: [CURRENT PROCESS]. Constraints: [CONSTRAINTS]. Produce a timed agenda, facilitation questions, a draft set of 5-7 observable norms, and a two-week trial plan with owners. Keep the session focused on work behaviors and systems, not naming individuals. Flag issues that should be handled privately rather than in the group.
Tips
- Bring a dated example for every issue; phrases such as “always” and “poor attitude” block useful agreements because they cannot be tested.
- Separate intent from impact: the conversation can acknowledge harm or rework even when nobody intended it.
- End with fewer commitments than you think you need, each stating who does what, by when, and how the team will know it happened.
- Do not use informal mediation to investigate harassment, discrimination, threats, or retaliation concerns; use the organization’s formal route.
FAQ
Can AI mediate a conflict for my team?
It can help you prepare questions and a structure, but the people involved and an appropriate manager, HR partner, or mediator must handle the real conversation.
What if the other person disputes my account of events?
Record the disagreement plainly and return to specific evidence, impact, and future expectations instead of arguing about motives.
Should I send the AI-generated plan to both people?
Usually revise it into a neutral agenda first. Do not share private notes or assumptions about either person.