There was a point in my agency where team conflict felt constant.

Not dramatic rows, just a steady stream of tension. Small disagreements. Frustrations that bubbled up. People coming to me because something felt wrong and they needed me to deal with it.

Before anyone even spoke, I could feel the emotional weight of it landing. I wanted to help. I cared about the team. But I was already carrying a lot. Running the business, managing clients, making decisions. Each new issue felt like another thing pulling at my attention.

What made it harder was how messy these conversations were. Everything arrived wrapped in emotion and urgency. It all felt personal. Every disagreement seemed to need my involvement, and by the end of the day I felt drained rather than useful.

The turning point came when two senior people told me they could not work together anymore. That was the moment I realised something had to change. This was a business, not a playground, and I needed a way to handle conflict without absorbing all the emotion myself.

A simple reframe of conflict helped

I came across a way of categorising conflict that immediately brought clarity. It breaks workplace conflict into four types. Task, process, status, and relationship.

Once I understood this, everything slowed down.

Instead of reacting to how a problem was presented, I could look at what kind of conflict it actually was. More importantly, I could ask the team to do the same before bringing issues to me.

Here is how those four types show up in agency life.

Task conflict

This is disagreement about what needs to be done.

These conflicts often appear during planning or creative discussions. Two capable people with different perspectives on quality, scope, or direction. In many cases, this is healthy tension. It shows people care about the work.

Handled well, task conflict can lead to better outcomes. Left unchecked, it can start to feel personal even when it is not.

Process conflict

This is about how work gets done.

These issues often arrive disguised as complaints about systems or workflows. Someone is frustrated with sign-offs, approvals, or decision-making steps. Underneath, it is often about feeling excluded, unheard, or unclear.

Process conflict is easy to dismiss as nit-picking, but it often masks something more important.

Status conflict

This is about who gets to decide.

In agencies with flat structures or overlapping roles, this comes up a lot. It shows up when people bypass agreed processes, question authority, or compete for ownership of work or client relationships.

If roles are unclear, status conflict quietly undermines trust and momentum.

Relationship conflict

This is the one everyone worries about.

Clashes of personality. Tension between individuals. What surprised me was how rare true relationship conflict actually is. In most cases, what looks like personal dislike turns out to be unresolved task or process conflict that has been left to fester.

When people stop talking about the work and start talking about each other, this is usually the end point, not the starting point.

Why this stops every issue landing on your desk

Once the team understood these distinctions, I changed one rule.

They could still bring issues to me, but only after they had taken a step back and asked themselves what type of conflict they were dealing with. I also asked them to think about at least one possible way forward.

At first, there was resistance. It felt like extra effort. I suspect some people enjoyed a good rant.

But after a few weeks, the conversations changed.

“Sarah keeps changing everything at the last minute” became “We need to agree how client feedback rounds work.”
“Tom is impossible to work with” became “We have different approaches to planning and need to align.”

When issues came to me, they were clearer, calmer, and easier to act on. I no longer had to wade through emotion to find the signal. And just as importantly, many problems were solved without me at all.

This is what made the biggest difference.

I stopped being the emotional referee. The team developed a shared language for conflict, and with it, better problem-solving skills. When I did need to step in, I could do so strategically rather than reactively.

This will not remove conflict entirely. You will still get vague feedback and emotional moments. That is part of working with humans.

But if you can help your team slow down, name the type of conflict they are in, and separate emotion from issue, you will protect your own headspace and build a more resilient team at the same time.

And that, for most founders, is a very good trade.

‍