In this article
Before you start
Why interviewers ask this
Conflict between two strong engineers slows a project even when each is doing good work, so interviewers want to see how early and how fairly you act. The question separates a manager who diagnoses from one who "makes them shake hands", and one who stays neutral about people yet decides the work. A weak answer is a pep talk or an immediate warning.
A strong answer separates the work conflict from the personal one, hears both sides and ends with an agreement and a follow-up date. The question also tests judgement under pressure: the two people still have to deliver together next week, so the answer has to protect both the work and the working relationship, and it has to say what you do if the first conversation fails. It sits beside the low performer answer in the people management round.
Conflict between two engineers from first principles
- Task conflict
- Task conflict is a disagreement about the work itself, such as a design choice, priorities or who owns a component, and it can often be settled with evidence and a clear decision.
- Working agreement
- A working agreement is a short written set of rules that two or more people agree for how they will work together, such as review turnaround, how to disagree and when to escalate.
In plain words
Two engineers in conflict are like two drivers who keep blocking each other at a junction. Shouting at them does not help. First you find out whether the road layout is the problem or the drivers are. Then you agree who goes first and when. The analogy breaks in one place. Drivers can be told the rule, but engineers hold to a rule best when they helped write it, though the manager still sets what is not negotiable. Said precisely, find out what the conflict is about.
Hear each person alone. Anchor both on the shared goal. Agree norms together, and follow up. The research is mixed on the work side: a 2003 meta-analysis reported that both relationship conflict and task conflict were negatively correlated with team performance and member satisfaction (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003), but a larger 2012 meta-analysis of 116 studies and 8,880 groups did not find a strong, negative association between task conflict and group performance (de Wit, Greer and Jehn, 2012). Both are correlational, so neither tests how early a manager should act.
Step 1: Find out what the conflict is about
Finding out what the conflict is about means deciding whether it is task conflict, relationship conflict or both. The input is what you have seen, such as slow reviews, curt messages or meetings that go quiet when one person speaks; the output is a stated hypothesis you can test. De Dreu and Weingart report that conflict had stronger negative relations with performance in complex tasks such as decision making and projects than in simpler production tasks, which is the kind of work engineers do (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003). Check your own part too: unclear ownership or conflicting priorities that you set can create the clash. What you now know: which kind of conflict you are handling.
Step 2: Talk to each person alone
Talking to each person alone means a private conversation with each before any joint meeting. The input is your hypothesis; the output is the facts both sides agree on and each person's goal. Use the approach called situation-behavior-impact (SBI) from the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL): name the specific setting, describe the observable action and its effect, then ask for their intent (CCL, August 2025). Listen more than you talk, do not take sides and do not carry messages between them. If the account involves harassment or discrimination, stop and involve your human resources (HR) team the same day. What you now know: each person's view and the facts you share.
Step 3: Find the shared goal and decide what is not negotiable
The shared goal is the outcome both people need, usually the project they must deliver together, and it is what keeps the conversation about work. The input is the two accounts from step 2; the output is a goal both accept and a list of what is not negotiable, such as deadlines, review rules and respectful conduct. If the dispute is technical and one of them is right, decide the technical question on its merits and say so, separately from how each person behaved.
Taking a side on the design is not taking a side against a person. Google's team research puts structure and clarity, meaning that goals and roles are clear, among the five dynamics of effective teams (Google re:Work, originally published 2015). Both meta-analyses found task conflict less harmful when it is not tangled with relationship conflict, which is why the manager decides the work separately from the people. What you now know: what you will decide and what you will leave to them.
Step 4: Agree working norms together
Agreeing norms means bringing the two together with the goal and asking them to write the rules for working together. The input is the shared goal and the facts; the output is a working agreement both can read back. Typical items are how long a review may wait, how to disagree in a thread, when to move to a call and when to ask you. Keep it short and specific, and let them draft it, since a rule they wrote is one they keep. State your own role: you will check in, and you decide if they cannot. Write it down and share it with both. What you now know: both people have said yes to the same rules.
Step 5: Follow up and set the line
Following up means checking at agreed dates whether the norms hold and acting if they do not. The input is the working agreement; the output is a decision about whether the conflict has ended. Check in a week or so after, then again later, and ask both people separately. If the behaviour continues and hurts delivery, give clear, specific feedback and treat it as a performance matter. GitLab tells managers to contact its team-member-relations group immediately if behaviour violates its code of conduct (GitLab Handbook, September 2025). Say the limits aloud: conduct violations go to HR at once. What you now know: the conflict is either resolved or escalated.
Step-by-step description
- Decide whether it is task or relationship.
- Speak to each person privately.
- Anchor both on the shared goal.
- Have them write the working agreement.
- Check at agreed dates and escalate if needed.
- Finding out what the conflict is about means deciding whether it is task conflict, relationship conflict or both.
- Following up means checking at agreed dates whether the norms hold and acting if they do not.
Knowing it is half the job. Saying it is the other half.
Interview Clozo is an AI interview copilot for real interview rounds: it hears the question and puts a strong answer on your screen, and you say it in your own words. See the features or how it works.
Start Free Trial →Worked example
An invented pair of engineers shows what a working agreement can change. The numbers are illustrative, made up for this page, and were computed by a short script.1 In the three weeks before the manager stepped in, the pair's ten review requests waited 28 to 60 hours each, a median of 39.5 hours. After a conversation with both and a written agreement that a review request gets a first reply within one working day, the next ten waited 4 to 12 hours, a median of 7.5 hours.1 The mean fell from 41.9 to 7.8 hours.1
| Measure | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Review requests counted | 10 | 10 |
| Median wait | 39.5 hours | 7.5 hours |
| Mean wait | 41.9 hours | 7.8 hours |
| Range of waits | 28 to 60 hours | 4 to 12 hours |
The point is not the size of the change, which is invented, but the habit: the manager picked one observable measure that the conflict affected, agreed a norm that targets it and checked again. A measure keeps the follow-up about the work, not the relationship.1
Text description of the diagram
- The median review wait was 39.5 hours before the agreement and 7.5 hours after.
- The mean fell from 41.9 to 7.8 hours.
Trade-offs and edge cases
The textbook answer, "talk to both and agree norms", fails in several cases, and a strong answer names them. Task conflict is a disagreement about the work itself, such as a design choice, priorities or who owns a component. Relationship conflict is friction between people that continues even when the work question has been answered. First, if the conflict is about conduct such as harassment or discrimination, skip mediation and involve HR the same day.
Second, if one side has a much stronger opinion, make sure the quieter person is heard alone first, then decide the technical question on evidence. Third, if the conflict is mostly task conflict, a clear decision from you may end it faster than a long conversation. Fourth, if the two cannot agree norms after a fair try, change the work: separate their dependencies or assign a different owner. Fifth, the studies disagree on whether task conflict hurts performance and average over many teams, so treat them as context, not as a forecast for one pair.
Text description of the diagram
- Task conflict is a disagreement about the work itself, such as a design choice, priorities or who owns a component.
- Relationship conflict is friction between people that continues even when the work question has been answered.
How to answer it in an interview
The model answer below names the diagnosis, the conversations, the shared goal, the agreement and the escalation line.
Two of your key engineers can barely stand each other, and you need them to deliver a project together. What do you do?
First I work out whether the conflict is about the work or about the people, and I check whether I created it with unclear ownership. Then I speak to each of them alone, describing what I saw and its effect and asking what they intended. I bring them together around the shared goal, decide any technical question on its merits, and ask them to write a short working agreement. I follow up after a week and again later. If conduct crosses a line, such as harassment, I involve HR the same day. Otherwise I stay neutral about the people and clear about the outcome.
Spoken structure: diagnose, hear each alone, anchor on the goal, agree norms, follow up, and name the escalation line.
Illustrative example, third-person composites written for this page, not real answers. The differing words are in bold.
| Weak answer | Strong answer |
|---|---|
| "She put them in a room and told them to sort it out, then backed the more senior engineer when it flared again." | "She spoke to each alone first, asked what each intended, decided the design question on evidence and stayed neutral about the people." |
| "He hoped it would pass and said the team was fine." | "He acted at the first slow reviews, named one measure, and checked it after a week." |
| "They had a good talk, and that was it." | "They wrote a short working agreement and the manager told them when she would decide if they could not." |
| Dimension | Weak | Strong | Staff |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diagnosis | Assumes personalities clash. | Separates work conflict from people conflict. | Also checks own part: ownership, priorities, incentives set by the manager. |
| Neutrality | Backs the senior or louder person. | Neutral about people, clear about outcomes. | Shows both sides were heard alone before any decision. |
| Deciding the work | Leaves the technical question open. | Decides it on evidence and explains why. | Decides it separately from conduct and records the reasoning. |
| Agreement and measure | Handshake, no record. | Written working agreement, one observable measure. | Pair drafts the agreement; the measure is reviewed at fixed dates. |
| Escalation line | None, or treats conduct as a clash. | Conduct issues go to HR the same day. | Also names when to change the work or the owner. |
| Follow-up readiness | Moves on after one talk. | Checks after a week, asks each alone. | Has a next step ready if the behaviour continues. |
Common mistakes
- Forcing a handshake. (wrong) "I put them in a room and told them to sort it out." (right) "I spoke to each alone first and prepared the joint meeting."
- Taking a side on the person. (wrong) "I backed the more senior engineer." (right) "I decided the technical question on evidence and stayed neutral about the people."
- Waiting. (wrong) "I hoped it would pass." (right) "I acted when I saw the first slow reviews."
- Skipping the follow-up. (wrong) "We had a good talk." (right) "We agreed a measure and checked it after a week."
- Mediating a conduct problem. (wrong) Treating harassment as a personality clash. (right) Involve HR the same day.
Follow-up questions
How would you resolve a conflict between two people?
Use the same five steps: find the cause, hear each alone, set the shared goal, agree norms and follow up. Write the agreement down and check it against one observable measure.
How would you deal with someone disrupting your team?
Give that person specific feedback on the behaviour and its effect, using situation, behavior and impact, then agree what changes by when. If it continues, treat it as a performance issue, as the low performer answer describes.
How would you handle it if one side had a much stronger opinion than the other?
Hear the quieter person alone first so their view is not lost, then decide the question on evidence and explain why. Psychological safety, the belief that it is safe to take interpersonal risks, is what lets the quieter person speak (Google re:Work, originally published 2015).
When should you escalate a conflict to human resources?
At once if it involves harassment, discrimination or a breach of the conduct code, and early if you are unsure. GitLab asks managers to contact its team-member-relations group immediately in such cases (GitLab Handbook, September 2025).
How do you know the conflict is over?
Look for the observable measure you chose, such as review wait, and for how the two behave in meetings. Ask each person separately after a few weeks. The team health page covers how to read wider signals.
- Decide whether the conflict is about the work, the people or both.
- Speak to each person alone before any joint meeting.
- Decide technical questions on evidence; stay neutral about people.
- Have the two write a short working agreement and check one measure.
- Conduct problems go to HR the same day.
Sources
- Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis — Journal of Applied Psychology 88(4), De Dreu and Weingart, via Europe PMC, 1 Aug 2003
- The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis (de Wit, Greer and Jehn) — Journal of Applied Psychology 97(2):360-390, PubMed record 21842974, 1 Mar 2012
- Use Situation-Behavior-Impact (SBI) to understand intent — Center for Creative Leadership, 19 Aug 2025
- Understand team effectiveness (Project Aristotle), Google re:Work — Google re:Work (originally published 2015; month and day not stated on the page), 1 Jan 2015
- Underperformance, The GitLab Handbook — GitLab (content last updated 2025-09-04), 4 Sep 2025
