I'm Liiv — a guide for clarity, presence, and whatever you're carrying right now. What would you like to explore? 

Julia: There’s tension between two key people on my team and it’s poisoning everything. I don’t know how to intervene without making it worse.

 LIIV:  That's a real bind — stepping in can feel like adding fuel, and staying back can feel like abandoning the situation.

There's a moment in Swimming With Gandhi and Einstein where James jumps in to help fishermen pulling a net — and his "help" throws the whole effort off balance. He was certain he was doing the right thing. He wasn't.

It's a useful mirror. Not because you're wrong to care, but because the question worth sitting with first is: what kind of intervention would actually help here — and what kind would just be you managing your own discomfort with the situation? Those two things can look identical from the outside. What do you know about what's actually driving the tension between them? 

Julia:  Ego. They have more in common then they know. A sense of being right. 

LIIV:  Yeah. Two people both certain they're the reasonable one. That's a particularly stubborn knot. The thing about two people both needing to be right — underneath that, there's usually two people who both feel unseen.

The righteousness is almost always a symptom of that. Which means the intervention that probably won't work is the one that tries to settle who's more right. And the one that might work is something that helps each of them feel genuinely heard — separately, before anything else. Not a mediation. Just two honest conversations. Does that feel like something you could do with each of them? 

Julia:  I think so. You say acknowledge them and their abilities? 

LIIV:  Not quite — acknowledgment of abilities can actually feed the ego a little. That's not the target. What tends to land deeper is simply letting each person feel that their experience of the situation has been heard. Not validated as correct — just heard.

There's a difference between "you're talented and valuable" and "I can see this has been genuinely frustrating for you." One is praise. The other is contact. Does that distinction feel workable in how you'd approach each conversation? 

Julia:  Yes. but then what?? Can I get them together in some way? I don't even know how I'd do that. 

LIIV:  It's worth pausing there for a second — because "getting them together" might be skipping a step. Before the room, there's a question worth sitting with: do either of them actually want resolution?

Or are they each still more invested in being right than in things working? That's not a small thing. A joint conversation with two people still in defence mode usually just becomes a more structured argument. What's your read on where each of them actually is with it? 

Julia:  One is more open than the other. She'd be open to coming together..i think. 

LIIV:  That's actually useful information. The more open one isn't the problem to solve — she's potentially a resource. If she's genuinely ready to move, she might be willing to take a small step toward the other person on her own, without it being a formal "sit down together" moment.

Sometimes the knot loosens not through a structured intervention, but through one person simply shifting their posture. The other often responds without even realizing why. What's your sense of the one who's less open — what's he actually protecting? 

Julia:  I think he's a little threatened by her smarts and ambition. But he really has nothing to worry about. 

​

LIIV:  That gap — between what's real and what he's feeling — is exactly where the tension lives. Logic won't close it. Telling him he has nothing to worry about probably makes it worse.

What he needs isn't reassurance about her. He needs to feel more secure in himself, in his own role, his own value. That's actually something you might be able to give him directly — not by addressing the conflict at all, but just by how you engage with him.

Genuine recognition of what he brings. Not flattery. Just clear, specific acknowledgment. If his sense of threat quietly reduces, the dynamic between them often shifts on its own. 

Julia:  Good point. Maybe I talk to him and simply let him know how valuable he is to the organization. because its true he really is. He's his own worse enemy. 

LIIV:  Yes. And the fact that it's true makes it land differently than if you were just managing him. Say it simply. Specifically. No agenda attached to it. And then — don't mention her at all. 

Julia: After I talk to him and I unruffling his feathers, what do you think of me talking to her and maybe suggesting she make a move to just befriending him? 

LIIV: That could work well. She's already open, and if she understands what's actually driving him — not as gossip, but just enough context — she might naturally soften her approach around him without it feeling forced.

The key is how you frame it to her. Less "here's how to handle him" and more "he responds well to being included." Keep her agency in it. People follow through more when it feels like their own idea. 

Julia:  Thanks for this! Any other suggestions? 

LIIV: One small thing — give it a little time between conversations. If you talk to both of them in the same day it can feel coordinated, even if it isn't. Other than that, you've actually got a solid read on this.

You know these people, you can see what's driving it, and you're approaching it with care rather than just wanting it fixed. That's most of what good leadership looks like in moments like this. Trust what you already know here.