These answers draw in part from “Turning Conflict Into Collaboration: Building Stronger Relationships Through Communication” by Maegan Howell, MBA, M.A., BCBA, LMHC (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 →ABA team settings generate several characteristic conflict patterns. Role boundary conflicts arise when multiple professionals (BCBAs, BCaBAs, teachers, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists) have overlapping responsibilities without clear delineation of authority. Implementation conflicts arise when team members implement behavior plans differently, whether due to skill gaps, differing interpretations of written procedures, or deliberate deviation. Resource conflicts arise over client caseload distribution, access to supervision time, or priority-setting for limited services. Communication conflicts arise from frequency mismatches, style differences, or information withholding. Finally, value conflicts arise when team members or families have genuinely different priorities or philosophies about treatment approach. Identifying which conflict type is operating is the first step in selecting the appropriate resolution strategy.
Active listening is a set of behavioral practices that maximize accurate comprehension of what the other party is communicating — both content and emotional subtext — before generating a response. Key active listening behaviors include maintaining eye contact and attentive body posture, resisting the urge to formulate a response while the other party is speaking, reflecting back the content of what was said to confirm understanding, asking clarifying questions to fill gaps, and acknowledging the emotional dimension of the communication before addressing the factual one. In conflict situations, active listening matters because a substantial proportion of conflict escalation is driven by perceived misunderstanding — the sense that one is not being heard. When each party demonstrates genuine comprehension of the other's position before responding, the defensive posture that produces escalation often dissipates, creating conditions for collaborative problem-solving.
Conflicts with supervisees are inherently affected by the power differential of the supervisory relationship, and this differential must be acknowledged rather than ignored. Structurally, address the conflict in a private setting, at a time not immediately following an incident when emotions are heightened, and with a clear focus on the specific behavior of concern rather than a global evaluation of the supervisee's professionalism or character. Use a functional analysis frame: describe the specific behavior observed, identify its impact, express curiosity about what maintained it (not accusation), and problem-solve together. Concluding the conversation with clear behavioral expectations and a follow-up plan maintains accountability while positioning the conversation as supportive rather than punitive. The relationship is damaged not by addressing conflict but by addressing it with blame, vagueness, or disproportionate consequence.
Several communication techniques have consistent empirical support for conflict de-escalation and collaboration-building. Perspective-sharing involves explicitly stating your understanding of the other party's position before stating your own, which signals comprehension and reduces defensiveness. Interest-based framing involves identifying the underlying interests (what each party actually needs) rather than debating positions (what each party is demanding), which opens solution spaces that position-based negotiation forecloses. Collaborative problem-framing involves explicitly naming the conflict as a shared problem to be solved together rather than a competition to be won. Non-evaluative behavioral description involves describing specific observable behaviors rather than character attributions when identifying problems. Together, these techniques reframe conflict from a zero-sum contest to a joint problem-solving task.
Trust rebuilding after significant conflict is a gradual behavioral process, not a single repair event. It requires behavioral evidence over time that the conditions that produced the conflict have changed — not simply a resolution conversation that commits both parties to doing better. Practically, trust rebuilding involves the conflicting parties interacting more frequently in lower-stakes contexts before gradually reengaging in the higher-stakes interactions that were disrupted, providing explicit verbal acknowledgment of repair efforts when they are made, and following through consistently on any commitments made during the resolution conversation. Trust is rebuilt through accumulated reinforcement history, not through intention or agreement. Monitoring the behavioral indicators of trust — information sharing, willingness to accept influence, reduced self-protective communication — provides data on whether rebuilding is progressing or stalled.
Third-party involvement is appropriate when direct communication between the conflicting parties has been attempted in good faith and has not produced resolution, when the power differential makes direct communication genuinely unsafe or impossible for one party, when the conflict involves alleged ethical violations rather than interpersonal disagreement, or when the conflict has escalated to the point of affecting client services or team functioning. Third parties in ABA settings might include a clinical director, HR professional, organizational consultant, or ethics consultant depending on the nature of the conflict. Involving a third party should be framed as accessing additional problem-solving resources rather than as escalation or complaint — when possible, both parties should agree on the third party and their role before involvement is initiated.
Conflict avoidance in a colleague is itself a behavior maintained by reinforcement contingencies, most commonly negative reinforcement (escaping the aversiveness of conflict interaction) or positive reinforcement (maintaining a self-image as non-confrontational). Accommodating the avoidance — continually initiating and dropping the topic — reinforces the avoidance behavior and prevents resolution. A more productive approach involves reducing the response effort required for engagement: framing the conversation as low-stakes and collaborative rather than evaluative, requesting specific and limited interaction rather than open-ended discussion, and making it easier to engage than to avoid by structuring clear meeting commitments with agreed-upon agendas. If avoidance persists despite these accommodations, third-party facilitation or supervisor involvement may be the appropriate next step.
Conflicts with families about treatment recommendations are among the most clinically and ethically significant conflict situations BCBAs encounter. The same functional analysis framework applies: what is maintaining the family's disagreement? Common functions include fear that the recommended procedure is aversive to their child, insufficient understanding of the evidence base, prior negative experiences with professional recommendations, cultural differences in understanding behavior and appropriate intervention, or genuine value differences about treatment priorities. Each of these maintains different communication strategies. Clarifying that you understand the family's concern before explaining your recommendation, acknowledging genuine value differences without requiring their resolution as a precondition for collaboration, and building the family's participation in treatment design rather than presenting fully formed plans for approval are conflict prevention and resolution strategies simultaneously.
Conflict escalation occurs when the behaviors each party engages in during conflict produce aversive consequences for the other party, which motivates increasingly intense responding. This is a coercive cycle — each party's escalation behavior is both maintained by the momentary escape or resource gain it produces and functions as an aversive antecedent that drives the other party's further escalation. The cycle can be interrupted at multiple points: reducing the aversiveness of one's own communication (de-escalation), increasing the non-aversiveness of the interaction (positive communication), or removing the reinforcer that is maintaining the escalation behavior. Recognizing the functional structure of escalation cycles is the analytical foundation for selecting the appropriate de-escalation strategy — which specific intervention will break which specific link in the cycle for these specific parties.
Modeling effective conflict resolution for supervisees requires addressing conflicts openly when supervisees are present, rather than managing them behind closed doors and presenting resolved outcomes. When you navigate a difficult conversation constructively — with a teacher, a family member, or a colleague — and supervisees observe the full interaction, they receive the behavioral modeling that their own conflict resolution skill development requires. Debriefing after such interactions, explaining the reasoning behind specific communication choices, and inviting supervisees to reflect on what they observed extends the modeling into explicit instruction. Supervisors who model conflict avoidance, passive-aggressive responses, or escalatory communication are teaching those patterns as effectively as they would through direct instruction — the discriminative stimuli for conflict response behavior are shaped by observation, not just by what supervisors say about how to handle conflict.
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.
Turning Conflict Into Collaboration: Building Stronger Relationships Through Communication — Maegan Howell · 1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $18
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.
279 research articles with practitioner takeaways
239 research articles with practitioner takeaways
231 research articles with practitioner takeaways
1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $18 · 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.