When Conflict Is a Symptom and Not the Problem

Published 12 September 2025

Conflict inside an organisation is often treated as something to be stamped out. Raised voices, tense meetings, or awkward silences feel uncomfortable, so leaders rush to impose rules or smooth over disagreements. But not all conflict is bad. Sometimes it is a sign of a healthy organisation that can debate ideas honestly. Other times, it is a warning light on the dashboard, signalling something deeper that needs attention. Conflict is a symptom of what’s going on in an organisation and not the problem.

Substantive versus affective conflict

Not all disagreements are created equal. Substantive conflict is focused on ideas and their implementation. It is the argument over the best strategy, the budget priorities, or the approach to delivering services. Debate may feel lively or even heated, but when managed well it strengthens decisions. It shows that people feel safe enough to challenge each other and that the organisation has avoided the trap of groupthink. A complete absence of debate can be just as dangerous, suggesting that people may be agreeing publicly while disagreeing privately or disengaging altogether.

Affective conflict is different. It is about personality, not ideas, showing up as personal digs, resentment, or subtle undermining. It damages trust and drains energy. A team caught in affective conflict stops listening and starts protecting territory. The quality of decisions falls, and the organisation suffers.

Substantive conflict can turn into affective conflict if something fundamental is unclear. One of the most common culprits is a lack of clarity about the organisation’s purpose.

When purpose is fuzzy, conflict festers

If people are not certain what the organisation is there to do, they will fill in the blanks based on their own values and experiences. They will make up their own version of the mission and follow their own path. In a charity, this effect is amplified. People work in charities because they care deeply about a cause. Even small discrepancies in how the purpose is described can feel existential.

I once advised an organisation that supports sex workers and was consumed by destructive internal conflict. Leaders were trying to eliminate the tension with surface fixes, such as tighter behavioural expectations, more forceful management approaches, and disciplinary measures. As we talked, it became clear the organisation had two subtly different statements of purpose. One document said the charity existed to empower sex workers to take control of and make decisions about their own future. Another piece of literature said it existed to empower sex workers to take control and leave the sex trade. The difference may look small on paper, but in practice it signalled two very different missions.

Few people join a support organisation like this without a strong belief about what the right course of action should be. In such an emotionally charged environment, those two versions of purpose opened the door for substantive disagreements about ideas. Over time, those disagreements slipped into personal tension. Until the charity reconciled and clearly stated its purpose, no amount of behaviour policies could heal the rift.

Not just non-profits

A brief commercial example makes the same point. I worked with a regional dealer for a global fork-lift truck brand that wanted to be known as both the highest quality and the cheapest. That ambition created almost constant friction between sales, rentals, and service. Each team pulled toward a different reading of the mission. To reduce conflict, the organisation had to make a real strategic choice. Either lead on quality, or lead on price. Once the choice was made and communicated, decisions and behaviours aligned, and the day to day tensions eased. (Next time in Clearing the Path, I will explore how clear strategic choices prevent this kind of conflict and why trying to be both premium and cheapest is not a strategy.)

Practical steps for leaders

1. Audit your purpose statements. Look at your website, strategy documents, funding bids, and board minutes. Check whether the words align in meaning as well as in tone.
2. Test internal alignment. Ask staff, trustees, and volunteers to describe the organisation’s purpose in their own words. Differences in phrasing or emphasis reveal areas of risk.
3. Clarify and communicate. Refine your purpose with input from stakeholders, then embed it everywhere: induction packs, meeting agendas, external messaging, and performance goals.
4. Use conflict as data. Welcome robust debate as a sign of engagement. If disagreements become entrenched, emotional, or shift toward personalities, treat that as evidence of an underlying issue that needs clarity.
5. Model healthy debate. Encourage disagreement over ideas while setting clear norms against personal attacks.

Conflict is the smoke, not always the fire

Conflict itself is not always the enemy. Healthy organisations disagree vigorously about ideas. But when conflict feels personal or endless, it is often a symptom of a deeper issue. Clarity of purpose acts as a firebreak. When everyone is confident about what the organisation exists to achieve, differences of opinion stay substantive rather than turning personal.

At EmpowerPath, much of our work begins by surfacing the real issue behind visible tension. Clarifying purpose is often the turning point that restores trust and unlocks better decisions. If your organisation is feeling the heat, it may be time to look beyond the smoke.

Read our Success Stories to see how clarity of purpose has helped others resolve conflict and clear their path.

---

[Featured Image Credit: Photo by Andrea Piacquadio: https://www.pexels.com/photo/mad-formal-executive-man-yelling-at-camera-3760790/]