Conflict vs combat: a working definition
Most workplaces are not harmed by conflict, they are harmed by the avoidance of conflict and the slide into something far more damaging, which we can call combat.
Understanding the difference between the two is critical for any leader or HR practitioner who cares about culture, performance and psychological safety.
Conflict
In HR and organisational psychology, conflict is usually defined as a perceived incompatibility of goals, interests, values or perspectives between people or groups. It is:
Often about ideas, priorities or methods
Sometimes emotionally charged, but still bounded by respect
Potentially constructive when it is managed well, because it surfaces information, tests assumptions and drives better decisions
Combat
Combat, by contrast, is not a formal HR term, but it is a useful way to describe what happens when conflict becomes interpersonal, adversarial and unsafe. Combat is:
About winning and defeating the other person
Characterised by blame, personal attacks or power plays
Focused on protecting ego or status, not solving a problem
Emotionally and psychologically harmful, often triggering fear, withdrawal or counter-attack
Put simply:
Conflict asks, “How do we solve this?”
Combat asks, “How do I beat you?”
People often fear conflict because, in their experience, disagreement has too frequently been allowed to drift into combat.
Why conflict is not only inevitable, but healthy
Research in organisational behaviour distinguishes between different kinds of conflict:
Task conflict – disagreement about goals, priorities, strategies and ideas
Relationship conflict – tension based on personality clashes, dislike or past grievances
Meta-analyses show that moderate levels of task conflict can improve decision quality, innovation and performance, especially in knowledge work, if psychological safety is present and relationship conflict is kept low.
Healthy conflict:
Surfaces diverse perspectives
Groups that avoid conflict tend to fall into groupthink. Dissenting views, minority opinions and uncomfortable truths are quietly edited out. Controlled conflict keeps the system honest.Tests assumptions and reduces risk
When people are allowed to challenge plans and decisions, organisations are less likely to pursue flawed strategies or ignore emerging risks.Builds trust over time
Counter-intuitively, teams that can “argue well” often trust each other more. If I know I can disagree with you and still be respected and included, I feel safer and more connected.Supports learning and innovation
Psychological safety research shows that teams where people feel safe to speak up about errors, concerns and ideas deliver better learning outcomes and stronger performance. Constructive conflict is one of the ways that safety shows up in practice.
Conflict, then, is essentially data plus energy. The problem is how we handle that energy.
When conflict slips into combat
Conflict turns into combat when certain conditions appear:
The focus shifts from issues to identities
Conflict: “I see the budget differently to you.”
Combat: “You never understand the numbers, you always overreact.”
Once the other person becomes the problem, people feel attacked rather than engaged.
Power and status become the main game
In combat mode, people use positional power, alliances or institutional processes to “win” rather than to resolve. HR then gets pulled in not as a facilitator, but as a weapon.Psychological safety collapses
If people have learned that speaking up leads to punishment, exclusion or humiliation, any disagreement feels dangerous. They will either comply on the surface or engage in quiet sabotage.Emotions are unmanaged, not acknowledged
Strong feelings are normal in conflict. In healthy teams, emotions are recognised and contained. In combat, they are either denied until they explode, or deliberately inflamed and weaponised.
Combat is costly. It drives:
Absenteeism and presenteeism
Grievances and formal complaints
Turnover, particularly of high performers who are unwilling to stay in a toxic environment
Reputational damage and a culture of fear
From an HR perspective, combat is where we see the greatest drain on time, money and wellbeing.
Why people fear conflict: confusing the two
Most employees do not have a clean conceptual line between conflict and combat. Their mental model is often:
“Last time someone spoke up, it turned ugly, people were punished and nothing changed. So conflict is dangerous.”
A few reinforcing factors:
Historical trauma in the culture
If staff have lived through restructures, bullying leaders or toxic cliques, disagreement feels inherently unsafe. The nervous system remembers.Role-modelled “combat” from leaders
When senior leaders use meetings as battlegrounds, shut down dissent or label challengers as “negative” or “not a team player”, the organisation learns that conflict equals threat, not curiosity.Lack of shared language and skills
People are rarely trained in how to disagree constructively. Without a common toolkit, even simple differences can feel risky.HR’s own positioning
If HR is perceived as the “police” who show up only when things are bad, employees will assume that any conflict that reaches HR is already combat. That fear then ripples backwards, discouraging early, informal resolution.
So staff avoid conflict: they stay silent in meetings, nod along, agree in public and complain in private. Decisions look unanimous, but the organisation loses access to the very information it needs.
Reframing conflict as a leadership and HR asset
To harness the benefits of conflict while avoiding combat, HR and leaders can deliberately reshape the cultural norms around disagreement.
1. Create a shared distinction
Explicitly teach the difference:
Conflict is about issues, ideas and impact
Combat is about attack, humiliation and winning
Use examples, case studies and simple language so people can recognise, “We are in healthy conflict now,” versus, “We are drifting into combat.”
2. Set clear behavioural boundaries
Conflict stays healthy when you are very clear about how people argue:
Acceptable:
Challenging ideas, assumptions and plans
Asking for evidence or rationale
Expressing emotion without attacking others
Not acceptable:
Personal insults or labels
Threats, shouting or intimidation
Undermining, gossip, exclusion
The message: “Strong disagreement is welcome, disrespect is not.”
3. Build psychological safety intentionally
Psychological safety is not about being “nice,” it is about creating an environment where people can take interpersonal risks, such as asking for help or raising a concern, without fear of punishment or humiliation.
Leaders can:
Admit their own fallibility, “I may be missing something here, tell me what you see.”
Thank people for voicing concerns or different views, especially when it is uncomfortable.
Protect those who speak up from negative consequences, both overt and subtle.
HR can reinforce this through leadership development, coaching and performance frameworks that reward curiosity, collaboration and learning, not just individual heroics.
4. Teach practical conflict skills
Do not assume that adults “just know” how to do this. Practical skills include:
How to state a concern in behavioural, not personal, terms
How to separate interests from positions
How to listen to understand, not just to respond
How to stay with tension long enough to find a way forward
Frameworks such as interest-based negotiation, non-violent communication and the Thomas-Kilmann conflict modes can be integrated into leadership training and team workshops.
5. Intervene early when combat appears
When you see signs of combat, respond quickly and explicitly:
Name what is happening, “We have moved from challenging ideas to attacking each other.”
Pause the process if necessary, to reset expectations and regulate emotions.
Offer structured processes, such as facilitated conversations or mediation, before people entrench into oppositional camps.
A simple message for your organisation
From an HR perspective, the core narrative you want people to absorb is:
Conflict is necessary, normal and can be positive.
Combat is harmful, preventable and will be addressed.
If you can help leaders and teams internalise that distinction, you turn conflict from something people fear into something they can use wisely. The goal is not a “conflict-free” workplace, it is a workplace where people can disagree, challenge and learn without fear of being dragged into a fight.
That is where performance improves, trust deepens and culture becomes genuinely robust, not just superficially “nice.”
