Mutual Ground Strategies, LLC

04/15/2026

Join me this Friday, April 17 at 9:30am CT for a free webinar: How to Shift Stuck Relationships, Stalled Decisions, and High-Stakes Conversations

I will give some insights on conflict in the workplace and provide a few practical strategies for business owners, leaders, and HR professionals navigating conflict, communication breakdowns, and the conversations that keep getting delayed.

Presented by National Association of Women Owners (NAWBO) member Katie Kolon, JD, MA, Founder and CEO of Mutual Ground Strategies In business, tension often shows up indirectly—through delayed decisions, strained working relationships, or conversations people avoid because the stakes feel too high...

04/07/2026

Many people are promoted into management because they are excellent at their work.

What changes almost immediately is the nature of the job.

Instead of focusing only on their own output, they become responsible for conversations that shape how other people work together.

Moments when frustration shows up, when expectations are unclear, or when two people see the same situation completely differently . . .

Those conversations rarely come with guidance. Most managers are expected to figure them out as they go.

Over time that gap becomes visible in the way tension builds or decisions stall inside teams.

The ability to navigate those conversations is a skill. It is also one that most people were never taught to practice.

That is part of what we focus on in the leadership cohort I am running.

If you are interested in the small, practice-based cohort where leaders build real skill navigating workplace conflict, you can learn more here:

https://resources.mutual-ground.com/resilient-leader

04/03/2026

Most difficult conversations improve when someone manages the process, not the outcome.

Many leaders feel responsible for solving the problem in the room. They try to explain the right answer, settle the disagreement, or push the group toward a decision.

But difficult conversations rarely improve because someone imposed a solution.

They improve when someone gives the conversation structure.

Part of that structure is creating a sense of safety. When people know what to expect and that someone is there to manage the process, they are more willing to speak honestly and listen to each other.

That might mean clarifying the purpose of the conversation before jumping into solutions, making sure each person has the chance to explain their perspective, or simply slowing the discussion down so people can respond thoughtfully.

When the process is clear, people often do a much better job solving the problem themselves.

Managing the process of a conversation is a leadership skill that is rarely taught, but it is one of the most effective ways to keep difficult discussions productive.

It is also one of the skills we practice directly in the leadership cohort I am running.

If you are interested in the small, practice-based cohort where leaders build real skill navigating workplace conflict, you can learn more here:

https://resources.mutual-ground.com/resilient-leader

03/31/2026

A few years ago I was training another team to take over a program I had been running.

My managers had agreed that the program would transition to them, and I spent weeks preparing the team so they could run it themselves.

But even after the transition date, they kept coming back to me for direction.

At first I assumed they were still adjusting. When it continued, I reached out to their manager. His response was that his team did not have time to fully take this on.

The situation could easily have turned into a frustrating back-and-forth about responsibilities and capacity.

Instead I asked a different question.

“W𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗜 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺?”

The problem immediately became clear.

He believed his team was meant to support me.

While our managers had agreed his team would take over the program, that decision had never been communicated to him.

The issue was not resistance. It was a completely different understanding of the situation.

𝗜𝗻 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗲 𝗼𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲. Some questions lead people to defend themselves. Others reveal what is actually happening.

Learning how to ask the kinds of questions that uncover understanding instead of triggering defensiveness is one of the skills we practice in the leadership cohort I am running.

If you are interested in the small, practice-based cohort where leaders build real skill navigating workplace conflict, you can learn more here:
https://resources.mutual-ground.com/resilient-leader

03/26/2026

One reason difficult conversations escalate at work is that people believe they have to agree in order to move forward.

When someone raises a concern or frustration, leaders often jump quickly to defending a decision, explaining their reasoning, or proposing a solution.

Part of that impulse comes from a fear that acknowledging the other person’s perspective means conceding the argument.

But understanding and agreement are not the same thing.

In many conversations, people are not asking you to adopt their view. They are trying to confirm that their perspective has been heard accurately.

When a leader can reflect what they heard clearly, something important changes. The other person no longer has to fight to be understood.

The conversation slows down. Defensiveness drops. Instead of arguing about whether someone’s experience is valid, the discussion can move toward what to do next.

Confirming understanding is one of the most useful skills in difficult conversations, and it is something we practice directly in the leadership cohort I am running.

If you are interested in the small, practice-based cohort where leaders build real skill navigating workplace conflict, you can learn more here:

https://resources.mutual-ground.com/resilient-leader

03/24/2026

At one company where I worked, the quarterly product roadmap was the source of constant friction between teams.

Customers wanted to know what was coming and whether the features they had asked for would ever be built, and the customer-facing teams wanted to be able to respond.

The product team resisted committing to timelines because they knew engineering was already stretched thin.

𝗢𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗮𝗽𝘀.

𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀.

The customer teams needed something concrete they could point to so clients could see that real work was happening. Without consistent updates, customers often assumed nothing was being built at all.

The product team needed to avoid creating expectations they could not reliably meet.

For a long time those needs were addressed through opposing positions: share more about the roadmap, or share less.

What helped was shifting the conversation away from promises about the future and toward consistent communication about what we were actually delivering for customers.

We introduced regular product updates that gave the customer teams something real to share without forcing product to commit to timelines they could not guarantee.

The tension around roadmaps never disappeared, but the conflict became easier to manage because the underlying needs were being addressed.

In conflict resolution we often describe this difference as positions and needs. Positions are the problems and solutions people argue about. Needs are the real concerns behind those positions.

That is one of the core concepts we practice in the leadership cohort I am running.

If you are interested in the small, practice-based cohort where leaders build real skill navigating workplace conflict, you can learn more here:

https://resources.mutual-ground.com/resilient-leader

03/20/2026

Most workplace conflict is not really about the thing people say it is about.

A disagreement might appear to be about a deadline, a process, or a decision someone made.

But what people are often reacting to is something more personal: a sense that their judgment was dismissed, their contribution was minimized, or they were treated unfairly.

In other words, something is calling their sense of worth into question.

Dignity at work is the basic sense that your experience is respected and your contribution is valued.

When that sense is threatened, tension grows quickly. Conversations become defensive or strained, and the original issue becomes harder to resolve.

Leaders who can recognize when dignity is at stake are better able to address conflict before it escalates.

That kind of awareness is something we practice in the leadership cohort I am running.

If you are interested in the small, practice-based cohort where leaders build real skill navigating workplace conflict, you can learn more here:
https://resources.mutual-ground.com/resilient-leader

03/19/2026

I’m leading this webinar later today with SCORE:

𝗕𝗲𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗟𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰: 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁

This is a practical session on how to navigate conversations that feel tense, unclear, or easy to avoid, especially in business settings.

If that’s been showing up for you lately, you’re welcome to join.

Today | 2pm CDT

In this session, you will learn to recognize conflict, understand the emotions driving it, clarify your boundaries, and respond in ways that restore trust and move conversations forward.

03/17/2026

Most business challenges don’t fall apart because of bad strategy.
They fall apart in conversation.

This Thursday, I’m leading a webinar with SCORE:
𝗕𝗲𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗟𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰: 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁

We’ll look at what’s actually happening when conversations get tense, avoided, or stuck, and what to do in those moments.

I’ll walk through how to:
• Recognize what’s driving the conflict
• Work with emotions instead of pushing them aside
• Set boundaries clearly
• Keep conversations moving without escalating them

If you’ve been curious how I approach this work or what we practice in my leadership sessions, this is a good place to start.

Thursday | 2pm CDT

In this session, you will learn to recognize conflict, understand the emotions driving it, clarify your boundaries, and respond in ways that restore trust and move conversations forward.

03/17/2026

What do you do when people can't stop fighting?

Many difficult conversations get stuck because people are arguing from their positions rather than working on a shared problem.

One person believes the issue is performance.
Another believes the issue is workload.
Someone else believes the real problem is communication.

When people are solving different problems, the conversation rarely moves forward.

One of the most useful things a leader can do is slow the discussion down and clarify the goal everyone is invested in.

Once people are working toward the same goal, the conversation usually becomes much easier.

If you are interested in the small, practice-based cohort where leaders build real skill navigating workplace conflict, you can learn more here:
https://resources.mutual-ground.com/resilient-leader

03/13/2026

Most difficult conversations go poorly before they even begin.

By the time people sit down to talk, they often have not clarified what the real issue is, what they need from the conversation, or what outcome would actually move things forward.

Instead they walk in with a collection of frustrations and hope the discussion sorts itself out.

That rarely works.

A small amount of preparation can completely change the tone of a difficult conversation.

Clarifying the issue.
Thinking about what matters to each person involved.
Deciding how to open the conversation.

Those steps slow things down and make it much easier to address tension productively.

We practice how to approach those conversations in the leadership cohort I am running.

If you are interested in the small, practice-based cohort where leaders build real skill navigating workplace conflict, you can learn more here:
https://resources.mutual-ground.com/resilient-leader

03/12/2026

I was recently interviewed on Medium's Authority Magazine about how team leaders can create the right environment to resolve conflicts.

"Conflict resolution is not about being right or splitting the difference. It tries to open up possibilities for resolution that previously had not been considered when focused on the facts of what happened. It’s more about what you want from the future than judging the past."

If you’re interested in the conversation, you can read the interview here:

An Interview With Eric Pines