When two volunteers clash: conflict resolution in small teams

It usually starts with something small. One volunteer reorganizes the supply cupboard. The other, who set that cupboard up three years ago, finds the labels changed and says nothing, then says something to someone else. A month later, two good people are arranging their shifts so they never overlap, and everyone else is tiptoeing around the kitchen.

Conflict resolution in teams this small is less about technique than about timing and nerve. Most clashes between volunteers can be eased in one or two honest conversations, if someone holds them early. Left alone, they rarely fade. They harden, and a team of twelve slowly becomes two teams of five and a couple of people who stop coming without saying why.

What follows is the approach I come back to: what to notice, who to talk to first, how to run the conversation when both people are in the room, and what to do when it does not work.

Why volunteer conflicts feel bigger than they are

In a paid workplace, two colleagues who dislike each other still have to show up on Monday. Volunteers do not. That changes the stakes. The cost of a clash is not a slower week; it is people leaving, and the ones who leave are often the ones who cared most.

Volunteer conflicts also tend to be about belonging rather than tasks. The cupboard is not really about the cupboard. It is about who is respected, who has been here longest, and whose way of doing things counts. Once you can see that underneath, you can stop refereeing an argument about labels and start talking about the real thing.

And there is usually nothing to absorb the strain. No HR department, no manager two levels up. There is you, a group chat and a folding table. That is enough, but only if you step in.

Signs a disagreement is turning into a clash

Disagreement is healthy. A team where nobody ever disagrees is usually a team where people have stopped saying what they think. The shift from disagreement to a clash tends to show up like this:

People talk about each other instead of to each other.
Rota swaps start to look designed to avoid one person.
Messages in the group chat turn short and formal where there used to be jokes.
Other volunteers take sides, or catch you after a session to ask whether you have noticed anything.
Small rules are suddenly enforced very precisely.

If you see two of these at once, it is time to act. Waiting for it to blow over is the most common mistake, and I have made it more than once.

Step one: talk to each person alone

Before you put two people in a room together, talk to each of them separately. This is not about gathering evidence. It is about letting each person be heard without an audience, and finding out what they actually want.

Keep it short and private: a coffee after the session, a phone call, the walk out to the parking lot. These four questions are usually enough:

What has been happening, from your side?
What matters most to you about how this gets sorted out?
What would a good outcome look like?
Is there anything you think the other person does not understand?

Then say back what you heard, without agreeing or disagreeing. "So the main thing for you is that the system you built gets some respect, and that changes get talked about before they happen." People soften a great deal when they hear their own view described fairly by someone else.

One idea from Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton is worth carrying into these talks. The authors separate what people say they want (their position) from why they want it (their interests). "The cupboard has to go back the way it was" is a position. "I want my work to be respected" and "I need to find things fast on a busy night" are interests. Two positions often collide head on; two sets of interests can usually both be met.

Step two: the joint conversation

If both people seem ready after the separate talks, bring them together. Pick a neutral time, not right before a session and never in front of anyone else. Thirty minutes is plenty. Sit side by side at a table rather than facing each other across it, and have water and nothing else to distract.

The opening is the part most leaders dread, so here is something you can say almost word for word:

Thanks for coming, both of you. I've talked to each of you on
your own, and I know you both care a lot about how this team runs.
That's why we're here.

The aim tonight isn't to decide who was right. It's to agree how
you'll work together from here.

I'll ask each of you to say what matters to you, without
interruption, for two or three minutes. Then we'll look for what
you both want, and write down two or three things to try.

Who would like to start?

After that, follow a simple order and do not rush it:

Each person speaks without interruption. You keep time gently.
You summarize each person, then ask the other to say back, in their own words, what they heard. It is slow and slightly awkward, and it is the most important part.
You name what they share. Almost always: both want the team to run well, both want to be respected, and both are tired of the tension.
Together, list possible changes. Do not judge them yet.
Choose two or three small, specific agreements.
Set a date to check in, two to four weeks out.

When feelings run high, slow down rather than push through. Crucial Conversations makes a useful point here: when people stop feeling safe in a conversation, they tend either to go quiet or to come out swinging, and the fix is to restore that safety before returning to the topic. In practice that can be as simple as, "I can see this matters to you a lot. Let's take a breath," followed by a reminder of the aim you both agreed to at the start.

Write down what you agreed

Two people's memories of a hard conversation drift apart within a week. A short note, sent to both that evening, prevents a second argument about the first one. Keep it plain and neutral, with no blame in the wording:

Agreement	Who	Starting	Check-in
Changes to shared spaces get mentioned in the group chat first	Both	Next session	In 4 weeks
Cupboard labels stay as they are; one shelf is kept for new items	Both	Now	In 4 weeks
Each leads a different Saturday shift, alternating weeks	Both	Next rota	In 4 weeks

At the check-in, ask each of them how it is going, together or separately, whichever feels easier. Small slips are normal and not a reason to start again. Notice what has improved and say it out loud.

Regular check-ins with everyone on the team make all of this easier, because problems surface while they are still small. The one-on-one meeting questions are a good set to start with.

When conflict resolution does not work

Sometimes, despite real effort on all sides, two people cannot work together comfortably. That is not a failure of the method. It is how people are sometimes. Options at that point:

Put them on different shifts or different parts of the work, openly and by agreement, never as a punishment.
Ask a third person both of them respect, another team lead or someone from your organization, to help with one more conversation.
If there is any bullying, harassment, safety concern or anything else that crosses a line, stop treating it as a disagreement. Follow your organization's policy and pass it to the person responsible.

If the conflict seems to be wearing on someone's health, yours included, encourage them to talk to a doctor or a counselor. You can hold a team together; you are not expected to carry everything.

It is also worth looking at workload. Clashes grow fastest where people are stretched thin, and a sharp exchange in the kitchen is sometimes the first visible sign of volunteer burnout rather than a personality problem.

A few questions that come up

Should I take sides if one person is clearly in the wrong?

If someone has broken a rule or treated another person badly, say so, privately and directly. But most clashes are not like that. Most are two reasonable people with different habits. Taking sides there makes you a third party to the conflict instead of the person who can help end it.

What if only one person wants to talk?

Talk to that person, and leave a clear, low-pressure invitation for the other. Sometimes the reluctant one comes round after hearing that the conversation is about the future, not about blame. If they never do, move to practical separation and let it rest.

Can I sort it out in the group chat?

No. Group chats turn private tension into public sides. If something flares there, reply once with something like "Let's talk about this in person, I'll message you both," and then do exactly that.

What if I am one of the two people?

Then you cannot also be the referee. Ask someone else on the team, or someone from your wider organization, to hold the joint conversation, and do the separate talk with them yourself as one of the two.

There is more on tired teams, feedback and care across the team health section. For now, if a clash is already simmering on your team, send two short private messages tonight asking each person for twenty minutes this week. That first step is usually the hardest one.