Two people can disagree about what happened without either one being dishonest.

Two employees can walk away from the same conversation with completely different versions of what happened.

One person says the other was dismissive. The other says they were simply being direct. One remembers being interrupted repeatedly. The other remembers trying to keep the conversation moving.

Then the conflict gets worse because each person starts treating disagreement with their interpretation as evidence that the other person isn’t listening or is being dishonest.

That’s where managers can get pulled into trying to establish one official version of reality.

Sometimes that’s necessary. If there’s a factual question that actually determines what needs to happen next, you may need to sort it out.

A lot of the time, though, two people can experience the same interaction differently without either one intentionally misrepresenting what happened.

I think it’s more productive to acknowledge both experiences rather than forcing one person to surrender theirs.

“You experienced that as dismissive. They experienced themselves as being direct. Let’s figure out what happened between those two perspectives and what needs to change going forward.”

The goal isn’t to pretend every interpretation is equally accurate.

It’s to recognize that conflict can stay stuck when each person believes progress requires the other person to admit, “Your version is right, and theirs is wrong.”

Sometimes you can move forward without settling that argument first.

References: Gilligan SG. Coevolution of primary process in brief therapy. In: Brief Therapy: Myths, Methods, and Metaphors. Routledge; 1990:359-377.