These answers draw in part from “Leading Across Disciplines: Supervising Multidisciplinary Teams for Effective Conflict Resolution” by Carly Dragan, SLPD, CCC-SLP, BCBA, LBA (BehaviorLive), and extend it with peer-reviewed research from our library of 27,900+ ABA research articles. Clinical framing, BACB ethics code references, and cross-links below are synthesized by Behaviorist Book Club.
View the original presentation →The most frequent friction points involve overlapping scope of practice in verbal behavior intervention, where BCBAs using Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior may use different terminology and procedures than SLPs trained in developmental language approaches. Goal prioritization conflicts arise when the BCBA's behavioral targets and the SLP's language goals address similar skills through different procedural lenses. Prompting hierarchy preferences are another common source — SLPs may favor errorless learning approaches or naturalistic incidental teaching models that conflict with the discrete trial structure preferred by the BCBA. Additionally, data collection formats often differ between disciplines, creating administrative friction around whose systems should be used for shared behavioral objectives.
Begin by clarifying whether the contradiction is in goals, procedures, or both. Request a meeting to discuss the specific clinical basis for each recommendation rather than addressing it through written notes or indirect communication. Use interest-based framing: focus the conversation on what outcome is best for this client rather than on which discipline's framework should govern. Document the disagreement, the discussion, and the resolution in your clinical records. If the conflict cannot be resolved at the team level, use your organization's established escalation pathway. Under Ethics Code 1.07, you have an obligation to work collaboratively, which means good-faith engagement with the other provider's perspective — not capitulation, but genuine consideration of whether their clinical reasoning has merit before asserting a contrary position.
Effective training combines direct instruction on conflict frameworks with behavioral rehearsal in case-based scenarios. Identify two or three recurring conflict types in your specific organizational context — for example, disagreements with school staff about reinforcement practices, or disputes with OTs about sensory-based recommendations. Write specific scenarios based on these recurring situations, define the behavioral targets for the supervisee's response, and conduct role-play practice with immediate feedback. Gradually increase scenario complexity. Follow up after actual team interactions with specific behavioral feedback on what the supervisee did well and what to adjust. Track performance across multiple scenarios over time rather than treating this as a one-session training event.
Professional biases operate as establishing operations that increase the salience of information consistent with your framework and decrease the salience of disconfirming evidence. A BCBA who has internalized a strong professional identity around behavioral approaches may systematically underweight developmental or neurological evidence when it challenges a behavioral recommendation. Self-assessment begins with tracking your attributional patterns: when a team disagrees with you, do you typically attribute it to their misunderstanding, or do you consider whether their framework offers a genuinely different clinical perspective? Notice whether you prepare differently for meetings with professionals from different disciplines. Seeking out literature and continuing education from adjacent disciplines is a structural approach to managing bias that builds genuine cross-disciplinary knowledge rather than relying on self-monitoring alone.
Accountability requires specifying who will do what by when in response to an unresolved conflict. After any meeting where a disagreement is not fully resolved, document the outstanding issue, assign a follow-up owner, set a deadline, and build in a verification step. In organizational terms, this means your team meeting protocols should include a standing agenda item for open issues and resolution status. Individual accountability at the supervisee level means supervisees know they will be asked at their next supervision meeting how they followed up on any identified conflict. Without explicit accountability structures, conflict resolution relies entirely on individual motivation — which is insufficient when the conflict involves parties with competing interests.
Code 1.07 requires BCBAs to work collaboratively with other professionals when it is in the client's best interest. This creates a positive obligation — not merely to avoid being obstructionist, but to actively support coordination and communication. When a BCBA withdraws from team collaboration because relationships are difficult, or communicates only through documentation rather than direct engagement, this falls short of the collaborative standard the code requires. The code also implies that BCBAs should maintain respectful professional relationships even when they disagree clinically, and that disagreements should be addressed through professional channels rather than through unilateral clinical decisions that circumvent the team process.
Early behavioral indicators include changes in communication patterns — team members shifting from direct conversation to written-only communication, selectively excluding certain members from information sharing, or becoming notably brief and factual in interactions that were previously more collaborative. Positional language increases: statements about what our discipline does versus what your discipline does. Decision latency lengthens: simple coordination decisions that previously required minutes now require multiple meetings. Parents or clients begin receiving inconsistent information from different team members. Any of these patterns, observed across two or more interactions, should prompt the supervisor to intervene proactively — requesting a team check-in, facilitating a structured discussion of the underlying disagreement, and establishing explicit shared goals to reorient the team around client outcomes.
Documentation should capture the nature of the disagreement, the steps taken to resolve it, the outcome, and any residual open issues. In clinical records, this typically appears in progress notes as a brief factual statement: a disagreement with the OT regarding sensory-based protocol was discussed in team meeting on [date]; consensus was reached to [specific decision]. Supervision records should document conflicts that involved supervisees and specify the supervisory action taken. Do not include interpretive language about other professionals' motivations or capabilities in clinical documentation. If a conflict was escalated beyond the team level, document the escalation pathway, outcome, and any plan modifications that resulted. This documentation protects the client's right to coordinated services and demonstrates the BCBA's good-faith effort at collaboration.
They can and should be. Antecedent interventions include establishing clear meeting protocols, role definitions, and decision-making processes before conflicts arise — reducing the ambiguity that often functions as an establishing operation for conflict. Differential reinforcement strategies apply at the team level: explicitly acknowledging collaborative behaviors, constructive contributions, and instances where team members effectively bridged disciplinary differences reinforces those behaviors. Extinction applies to unproductive conflict patterns: supervisors who do not respond to triangulation, gossip, or passive resistance with attention or accommodation remove the reinforcement maintaining those behaviors. Behavioral skills training — instruction, modeling, rehearsal, feedback — is the same framework that produces skill acquisition in clients, and it is equally effective for building conflict resolution skills in teams.
When team conflict is directly impacting client outcomes, the ethical priority shifts from managing team relationships to protecting the client's interests under Ethics Code 2.01. This may require a more direct escalation than would otherwise be warranted. First, document the specific impact on client progress with data — not impressionistic statements about team dynamics, but concrete evidence that the conflict has compromised implementation consistency, goal alignment, or family communication. Bring this documentation to the team meeting as a client-centered reframe: the discussion is not about which discipline is right but about what specific changes are needed to support this client's progress. If team-level resolution fails, escalate to the clinical director or program supervisor. The client's welfare creates an obligation to act that overrides concerns about professional relationships.
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Ready to go deeper? This course covers this topic with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
Leading Across Disciplines: Supervising Multidisciplinary Teams for Effective Conflict Resolution — Carly Dragan · 1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $10
Take This Course →We extended these answers with research from our library — dig into the peer-reviewed studies behind the topic, in plain-English summaries written for BCBAs.
224 research articles with practitioner takeaways
212 research articles with practitioner takeaways
183 research articles with practitioner takeaways
1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $10 · BehaviorLive
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
You earn CEUs from a dozen different places. Upload any certificate — from here, your employer, conferences, wherever — and always know exactly where you stand. Learning, Ethics, Supervision, all handled.
No credit card required. Cancel anytime.
All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.