10 Lies People Tell Themselves to Avoid Accepting Help to Resolve or Manage Conflict

Why are people afraid, hesitant, or resistant to hiring a mediator, conflict coach, or ombuds?  It is natural for people to be skeptical about hiring someone to help with a conflict.  This reluctance often stems from unfounded fears.  Many fear that involving an outsider might escalate the situation or make them appear incapable of resolving issues independently.  Explore the big and little lies people believe about conflict resolution – the reasons they give for not seeking help.  Understand why these reasons often don't hold up and discover the valuable support and objective perspective that a conflict resolution professional can provide for effective and lasting outcomes.

1. Myth: “It’s not a conflict if I do not call it a conflict.”

It does not matter whether you want to call a conflict a disagreement, a difference in opinion, a challenge, or a conflict.  Calling conflict by any other name will not magically resolve the underlying issue.  Just like pretending an elephant in the room doesn't exist won't make it disappear, ignoring disagreements or conflict only fuels the problem, allowing it to grow bigger and more volatile.  Ignoring a conflict is like letting a fire grow out of control.  Especially in the workplace, ignoring an issue may cause legal problems not only for the employer but also for individual managers.

Not all conflict is negative. When people are so afraid of conflict that they will not even mention the word, they assume that all conflict is bad or destructive.  Don't let the fear of conflict prevent you from building stronger relationships.  Openly addressing these challenges, no matter what you label them, can be the very foundation for healthy relationships and clear communication.  With the help of a third party, people can learn to develop a healthier relationship with conflict with a conflict coach and deal with the underlying conflict with a mediator, ombuds, or conflict coach. 

2.      Myth: “There’s something wrong with asking for help.”

Looking down on asking for help reflects how you view help and yourself.  Odds are that you have no problem offering your help to others and do not view others who ask for your help the same way if you were to ask for help.  What are you saying about yourself and others with this differential treatment?  Asking for help does not make you weak.  It may simply make you a leader who knows how to delegate and efficiently use your time on things you like to do or are good at, what’s important to you, rather than doing everything even if your expertise is not in that area.

3.      Myth: “It’s easy, so I can do it myself. I do not need to hire a mediator, ombuds, or conflict coach.”

Maybe you could do it yourself, but do you have the time?  Know when to outsource.  Your time might be more efficiently spent on your strengths.  Rather than spend 100 or 1000 times the time trying to DIY your conflict, you could hire someone to help you resolve it more quickly than you could do yourself. 

You may also think that someone internal to your company, such as an HR specialist or a manager, could resolve the conflict instead of an outside person.  However, HR or managers are not necessarily trained in conflict resolution.  Applicants typically do not need to demonstrate this skill during the hiring process, nor are they on many job descriptions as required skills.  Mediators are trained in specific skills to resolve conflicts, not just general communication skills.

Even if internal employees are trained in conflict resolution, employees in a conflict may not open up to those employees.  One cannot assume that others will want to talk to them.  There may be a fear or cynicism of the neutrality of HR or leadership and the role of office politics in the true neutrality or confidentiality of these internal hires. 

4.      Myth: “I only need to hire mediators, ombuds, or other outside contractors for the biggest and most serious conflicts.”

Some individuals hesitate to label disagreements as conflicts, viewing them as minor issues that don't warrant external intervention.  However, mediators are skilled at handling these concerns delicately.  They work to de-escalate tensions and provide a supportive environment where all parties can express their viewpoints without judgment.  Recognizing and addressing conflicts early, even if they seem minor, can prevent them from growing into larger, more disruptive problems.

If you wait until a conflict reaches the point of no return, then conflict resolution professionals have limited options to resolve the conflict.  At that point, cases may still settle, but relationships may not be repaired.  Parties might already be showing contempt and have no trust between them, and trust is not as easily repaired as it is broken.

It is similar to waiting until a house is almost burnt down or is starting to spread to a neighboring house to call the fire department instead of calling the fire department when a fire first starts.  It is hard to unburn a house.

5.      Myth: “Talking about a conflict will make it worse.”

It is a common but flawed assumption to believe that ignoring conflict is benign or that inaction has no effect, while addressing it is harmful.  Choosing silence doesn't equate to choosing peace.  Making a decision not to talk is still a decision.  Choosing to ignore conflict is still a decision with a potential effect, one that can breed legal trouble, particularly where a company or supervisor fails to stop harassment or make a website accessible in discrimination cases.  Like an untreated wound, a festering conflict can inflict significant damage on relationships over time, even without direct confrontation.

Open communication could make things better.  With a neutral like an ombuds or a mediator who uses a facilitative approach (both of whom are typically trained in conflict de-escalation techniques), a conflict likely would not be any worse than it is currently.  Speaking with a coach, mediator, or ombuds are supposed be confidential, so others do not need to know about your conflict or that you're seeking help if you don't want them to know.

Moreover, with individual conflict coaching, clients do not involve the other side at all in sessions, so coaching clients can make breakthroughs in their own thought and communication patterns without talking to the other side.  That may not be the same as if the people in conflict try to work things out themselves if they have a destructive communication style or habits. 

6.      Myth: “If I call in someone else to help, that means the situation becomes official or real.”

Believing "If I call in someone else to help, that means the situation becomes official or real" can keep you stuck.  This thought process often stems from denial, a fear or avoidance of conflict, and gaslighting of yourself or others.  The truth is, the situation is likely worse than you're letting on, and telling someone else about the situation will not make it any less true.  What you resist persists, so resisting help means that the situation will likely linger longer than if it were confronted directly.  Even though the situation may be worse than what you are telling yourself and others, the resolution may be easier than you fear.  In addition, just because you talk about an issue does not mean that you have to change any behavior.  It may instead be helpful to have the emotional support to confront your fears.  It's essential to confront this issue head-on and seek out support without delay.

7.      Myth: “It will not change anything.”

People give up before trying.  Maybe people go into mediation thinking that nothing will change, even years-long conflicts.  However, mediation often leads to resolution or at least an improvement in communication or understanding.  Most lawsuits or administrative complaints settle instead of proceeding to a trial.  Even if you do not settle, you can always proceed with litigation and arbitration after mediating or turning to an ombuds.

8.      Myth: “I wouldn’t want to air my dirty laundry by talking about my problems.”

Mediation is a confidential process, so you are not exactly airing your laundry to the public.  What is said in mediation stays in mediation, and typically, if you have a lawsuit, parties cannot use what is said in mediation to prove or defend against a case due to confidentiality.  When people hire lawyers to resolve their conflict (often in an adversarial manner), they also share their situation with legal counsel, yet they do not have the same sense of shame as with hiring a mediator or conflict resolution professional.  How much pain is your shame worth?  Moreover, if you wait too long to address an issue, the problem may be aired for the whole world to hear with litigation, bad publicity, or both instead of in a safe space within a mediation session. 

9.      Myth: “It costs too much.”

The financial implications of unresolved workplace conflict are clear: increased litigation costs, significant employee turnover, and a direct hit to your bottom line through reduced sales and profits.  Consider this: would you rather pour vast sums into and many years for litigation in paying a team of trial attorneys or lawyers, litigation costs, and potentially damages, a process often focused on blame rather than resolution, while risking further damage to your toxic workplace and suffering the ongoing costs of employee turnover and lost revenue from reduced sales and profits? Alternatively, would you strategically invest in a mediator, an ombuds, or a conflict coach?  By facilitating early resolution and addressing the core issues, you not only avoid exorbitant legal fees but also cultivate a positive workplace culture, retain valuable employees, and protect your profitability.  These professionals can help you settle disputes early and help you identify and resolve the root causes of conflict, preventing future costly disputes.  Choose to invest in prevention, not just damage control.

10. Myth: “Agreeing to mediate or participate in a conflict resolution session is a sign of failure and desperation.”

People believe that being the first to agree to mediate shows a sign of weakness in negotiating position because the party that agrees to mediate is desperate.  At the time, mediation might remind people of their relationship failure. However, mediation has an opportunity to repair a relationship if the parties so desire.  Conflict coaching can also help clients feel better about their situation and let go of the negative emotions associated with the conflict when they increase their confidence, own their choices, and accept their limitations or lack of control in a situation. 

The focus of mediation and conflict coaching is not to assign blame or shame anyone. Unlike litigation or arbitration, mediators and coaches do not dictate outcomes or say who is a winner and who is a loser. Participants are in control of the goals they wish to set in coaching and if and how they should settle in mediation.

In addition, whoever agrees to mediate first generally has no bearing on whether a case settles or the final result.  If anything, judges look favorably on parties that agree to mediate instead of clogging their docket.  For workplace disputes, agreeing to settle cases shows good business sense and saves hassle by avoiding costly and public litigation.