According to Forbes, workplace conflict management consumes more than a third of a typical manager’s time, with up to two-thirds of performance problems traceable to poorly handled disagreements. The publication details a case study involving “Zaid,” a Fortune 100 tech executive who transformed a tense standoff with colleague “Sheila” over a software upgrade project by employing a technique called “giving them the problem.” Rather than continuing to argue for his preferred internal development approach against Sheila’s outsourcing position, Zaid handed her full ownership of the solution design. This shift immediately transformed their dynamic, leading to a hybrid approach combining external vendor speed with internal quality controls, ultimately restoring trust and project momentum. This approach represents a powerful but underutilized leadership strategy worth deeper examination.
Table of Contents
The Neuroscience Behind Conflict Escalation
What makes Zaid’s approach so effective lies in understanding our brain’s threat response system. When the amygdala perceives conflict as threatening, it triggers the fight-or-flight response that bypasses rational thinking. This explains why even seasoned professionals revert to defensive positions during heated disagreements. The moment Zaid handed ownership to Sheila, he effectively deactivated this threat response by signaling safety and respect. Neuroscience research shows that when people feel trusted and empowered, the prefrontal cortex—responsible for complex problem-solving—remains engaged rather than being hijacked by emotional reactions. This biological reality makes traditional “convince them you’re right” approaches fundamentally flawed, as they keep both parties in defensive postures.
The Hidden Economics of Conflict Avoidance
While Forbes mentions the time managers spend on conflict, the broader economic impact deserves closer scrutiny. Organizations facing chronic unresolved conflict experience costs far beyond managerial hours—including project delays, employee turnover, innovation stagnation, and quality issues. When leaders like Zaid and Sheila stop copying each other on emails and rally departmental allies, they create organizational silos that damage information flow and collaborative capacity. The real cost isn’t just the specific project delay but the erosion of social capital that enables future collaboration. Companies that systematically address conflict resolution see measurable improvements in project completion rates, employee retention, and cross-functional innovation.
When “Giving Them The Problem” Fails
This approach carries significant risks that leaders must navigate carefully. Handing ownership to someone without established trust or proven competence can backfire spectacularly. The technique works best when both parties have demonstrated capability and shared goals, as in Zaid and Sheila’s case where both wanted project success but disagreed on methods. In situations with power imbalances, unclear accountability, or fundamentally misaligned incentives, this approach might simply transfer problems rather than solve them. Leaders must also consider organizational context—in highly regulated industries or safety-critical environments, complete ownership transfer might not be appropriate. The key is understanding when this approach creates empowerment versus abandonment.
Building Conflict Competence in Organizations
Developing leaders who can navigate conflict effectively requires more than occasional training. Organizations need to create cultures where constructive disagreement is valued rather than suppressed. This means rewarding leaders who surface and resolve conflicts early rather than those who maintain superficial harmony. Tools like the Conflict Dynamics Profile mentioned in the article provide valuable frameworks, but sustainable change requires embedding conflict competence into performance metrics, promotion criteria, and leadership development programs. The most forward-thinking companies are creating “conflict-positive” cultures where teams practice productive disagreement as a routine part of innovation processes, recognizing that the right kind of friction generates better outcomes than artificial consensus.
Beyond Individual Conflicts: Organizational Design Considerations
The principles behind “giving them the problem” extend beyond individual leadership moments to organizational structure and design. Companies that consistently face cross-departmental conflicts might need to examine their incentive structures, reporting relationships, and trade-off decision processes. When operations and engineering teams repeatedly clash over control versus speed, the real issue might be poorly designed organizational boundaries rather than individual leadership failures. Progressive organizations are creating hybrid roles, cross-functional teams, and shared accountability metrics that build collaboration into their structure rather than relying on heroic individual interventions. This represents the next evolution beyond conflict resolution toward conflict prevention through intelligent organizational design.
