Practical guide
When Colleagues See the Same Problem Differently
Before deciding that a colleague is difficult, check what the situation looks like to them. A disagreement may contain information neither person has fully explained.
Start with what each person sees
When colleagues disagree, they may be answering different questions about the same situation. One wants a reliable account of what happened. Another wants to decide what happens next. Someone else is concerned about a commitment or relationship the decision could affect.
TDF calls these perceptual lenses facts, choices and connections. Asking about all three can help you understand what each person is bringing to a disagreement. You do not have to know anyone's assessment result to use the questions in this guide.
Start with a specific event and an open question: What are you seeing here that I may be missing? The answer may reveal a practical concern you can address, even if you still prefer different options.
A disagreement about changing priorities
Consider this fictional situation. Morgan is preparing a client report due Friday. Lee asks for four new sections on Thursday afternoon. Morgan says, “You keep changing the brief.” Lee replies, “You are making this harder than it needs to be.”
Morgan is looking at unfinished analysis and the time required to check it. Lee is thinking about a conversation in which the client asked for help preparing for Monday's board meeting. Neither has explained the full situation to the other. Their next exchange could easily become an argument about who is more helpful or organized.
We cannot identify their TDF patterns from this exchange. Morgan's role, Lee's client conversation and the deadline all matter. What we can do is separate the information they hold from the conclusions they have drawn about each other.
First, establish the facts and uncertainties
Morgan could restart the discussion by naming the request and its effect: “The four sections are new to the brief I have. I need to check what is involved before I can confirm Friday. What exactly did we agree with the client?”
Lee can then explain that two sections need existing figures rearranged, while two need fresh analysis. The client asked for the additional material, but Lee has not yet confirmed that all of it will arrive Friday. That is useful information Morgan did not have.
Keep these three questions separate:
- What has actually been requested or promised?
- What work does that require, based on the information we have?
- What do we still need to check before estimating the time?
Write uncertain estimates as estimates. If a new analysis might take half a day, say what you need to inspect before confirming it. That makes the gap visible without pretending you already know the answer.
Next, make the choices explicit
Facts alone will not resolve which work should come first. Morgan and Lee still need to choose what to include, what to defer and who can agree to a change in the client commitment.
Morgan might say, “I can see three options: keep the original report, add the two sections using existing figures, or ask to move delivery so we can complete all four. Which option serves the client's most important need?”
Lee can ask the client which sections are essential for Monday and confirm who has authority to change delivery. The choice becomes specific enough to discuss. “Be more flexible” gives Morgan no clear priority; choosing two sections and deferring two does.
Then, understand the connections
A feasible schedule is only part of the picture. The client may be relying on the report to explain a difficult issue to the board. A colleague may have set aside Friday to review the original version. Changing the work affects those relationships and arrangements too.
Ask, “What is this report helping the client do, and who else needs to know if we change it?” Lee can explain the board meeting context. Morgan can explain the reviewer's availability. Both can now see why a seemingly simple request has consequences beyond the two of them.
In TDF, connections include context, dependencies and relationships. They are not limited to whether someone feels happy or unhappy. Read How TDF Works for a fuller explanation of the F lens.
Record a next step both people understand
A possible next step in this example is to check the two essential sections with the client before changing the brief. Morgan estimates the remaining work and checks the reviewer's availability; Lee confirms the client's priorities. They set a time to settle the plan.
By 10 a.m. tomorrow, Lee will confirm which additions the client needs for Monday. Morgan will check the work needed for those additions and the reviewer's availability. We will then confirm Friday's scope together and tell the client what to expect.
Before closing, ask each person to confirm what they are taking responsibility for. A shared deadline is useful only if it attaches to the same task in both people's notes.
Phrases you can use in your own conversation
| What you need | A way to ask |
|---|---|
| Clarify the event | “Can we compare the request each of us received?” |
| Understand a conclusion | “What led you to see that as the best option?” |
| Find the priority | “If we cannot do both today, which needs to come first?” |
| Hear the context | “What else depends on this that I may not know about?” |
| Check your understanding | “You need a decision today because of that commitment. Have I understood?” |
Use the question you mean, then leave room for an answer. If your summary is wrong, change it. Repeating the other person's words while preparing a rebuttal will not tell you much that you do not already believe.
Check what changed after the discussion
At the agreed time, check the action rather than asking only whether everyone feels better. Did the missing information arrive? Is the priority clear? Have affected people been told? If the plan changed, does each person understand why?
You may still disagree. A clear disagreement about cost, timing or responsibility can require a decision from the person accountable for it. You do not need to settle who has the “right personality” to make that decision.
For a routine group discussion, use the facts, choices and connections meeting worksheet. For questions about what a pattern result describes, see TDF assessment methodology and interpretation.
This guide draws on the communication chapters in David Farr and Bill Roberts' Discovering Your Best Self: The TDF Map and The Map of TDF. Morgan, Lee and their client are fictional; the conversation illustrates an application of the model. Find the books on How TDF Works.