Internal conflict is like a cancer destroying our organisations.  This is normally a massive headache for leaders, but when trying to improve the diversity within the team, it becomes a blocker.  There is a pathway to diversity and that leads to gaining an acceptance of the necessity for inclusion first. Once achieved then diversity becomes a possibility.  Being inclusive with someone you are arguing with or now don’t like, because of some point of conflict, makes that possibility quite remote Companies in Japan have been diligent in organising awareness sessions about Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.  Often it is a box ticking exercise though and no one actually measures whether the firm achieved its diversity aims.  In other cases, they took it seriously but there was no result.  The awareness session ended and that was that.  The bridging from the “why” to the “how” wasn’t achieved.  There are many reasons why the transition didn’t occur and certainly one of them is unresolved conflict within the team, actively blocking attempts to become more inclusive. Conflict can arise over processes, roles, direction, decisions and other individuals. We need to know what we are dealing with, so we need to understand exactly what is the cause of the conflict. To analyse the issues we are confronting let’s use this 5 phase prism. 1. What is the exact nature of the conflict 2. What are the conflict responses of the key people 3. what are the causes of the conflict, the root cause 4. what are the possible resolutions 5. what is the best resolution and then execute on that  When everyone is “hot” that would be a bad time to start interrogating people about the issue.  A small delay is a good idea and allow people to cool down a bit before jumping in to sort this mess out. Don’t have the conversation in the office in a meeting room, which is quite a public forum. Instead, head outside and find a discreet coffee shop away from prying eyes so that the individuals can speak more freely.  Let’s ignore all the noise we have been hearing about what is going on and actually find out the real situation. Being questioned by the boss is never pleasant, so we must be seeking information in a way in which people are happy to share their thoughts on the matter. We need to frame our questions in a way which will allow them to bring forth all of the issues driving the conflict.  For example, we could ask, “I hear a lot of people talking about what is going on, which I am going to ignore, because I want to hear what are your concerns?”.  We don’t want to sound accusatory, so we avoid focusing on the individuals.  Using a sports metaphor, we play the ball, not the man.  We make it clear we are here to sort this out and we are open to hearing all views on the problem. For example, “We have a big target this year, which we must hit, so what do I need to do, to make it possible for the team to achieve that goal? The key now is to shut up and let them talk.  They will say things which will trigger a thought or generate a pertinent comment, but we should restrain those urges and let them tell us from their point of view why there is conflict in the team.  We use active listening techniques to signal we are listening, but we are not ending their sentences, jumping in with our worthy contribution or changing the subject.  We let them talk, so we can get to the bottom of the issue.  Not everyone responds the same way to conflicts so we have to be aware of the differences. There are six conflict response styles which we should look for. 1.     Avoid. This is very common in Japan.  People decide it isn’t worth it, so they become passive.  They are opposed to what is going on so they are not getting involved in fixing the problem. 2.     Accommodate. They decide it is easier to give in to the other side so their views, ideas and insights are not being engaged. 3.     Compromise. A solution is sought, which while imperfect, will ease the tension and reduce the active