The Debrief That Ran Long
A facilitator is running a one-day conflict-resolution workshop for 18 mid-level managers. The agenda allots 90 minutes to a role-play exercise followed by a 30-minute debrief, then a 15-minute break, then a 60-minute module on escalation procedures. During the role-play, one pair becomes genuinely heated: two managers from the same department surface a real dispute about a shared budget, and the room's attention shifts to them. It is now 40 minutes into the 90-minute exercise, and the facilitator judges that the live conflict, handled well, could be the most valuable learning of the day. But the escalation module is the one topic compliance requires be delivered in full, and the room is booked until 5 p.m. with no slack.
1. Decide whether to let the live conflict run and justify the decision against the workshop's objectives.
Read the worked answer
The decision hinges on which objective is non-negotiable. The escalation module is a compliance requirement that must be delivered in full; the role-play is a vehicle for practicing conflict skills. Letting the live conflict run serves the practice objective superbly - authentic emotion, real stakes, immediate feedback - but it consumes the only slack in the day, and there is none.
The defensible move is a bounded intervention: acknowledge the value aloud, set an explicit time box (say 15 minutes), and facilitate the pair toward a first step rather than resolution. Then close it cleanly, name what was learned, and protect the compliance module. If the pair needs more, offer to continue after the session or refer them to a mediated conversation. Letting it run open-ended trades a guaranteed compliance failure for an uncertain learning gain; the facilitator can capture most of the gain within a time box and none of the risk.
2. Describe how you would facilitate the 15 minutes so the pair and the room both benefit, and how you would close it.
Read the worked answer
Structure the 15 minutes so the room watches a method, not a fight. First, contract: ask both managers whether they are willing to work on it here for a short time, and confirm the room will observe silently. Second, slow it down: have each state the other's position before stating their own, which forces listening and surfaces the misunderstanding. Third, separate interests from positions - ask what each needs from the shared budget rather than what each demands. Fourth, find one concrete next step, such as a joint meeting with a defined agenda and a neutral third party.
Close by de-roling the room: ask observers what they noticed about the method, not about the people, and summarize the technique on the flip chart so it becomes a reusable tool. Thank the pair for their willingness, affirm that the dispute itself is not resolved and belongs in a private setting, and explicitly hand back to the agenda. The close matters as much as the intervention: without it, the room leaves activated rather than instructed.