Collaborating Through Constructive Conflict: A Guide for Library Administrators

As a library administrator—associate university librarian, associate dean, department head—you’ve probably experienced this: you send an email about a difficult decision, such as reorganizing desk schedules or shifting budgets, and… silence. No one replies. Or, you notice that some staff avoid initiating emails on sensitive topics altogether.

This isn’t just about poor communication. It’s often about avoiding conflict. People sidestep disagreements by staying quiet, hoping the tension will fade on its own. But in academic libraries, silence can stall progress, create hidden resistance, and prevent collaboration.

The truth is, conflict is unavoidable. The challenge isn’t to eliminate it, but to work through it constructively. As Amy Gallo explains, people tend to approach conflict as either avoiders—who value harmony and shy away from tension—or seekers—who lean into directness and debate. Neither style is better. What matters is knowing your own tendency and learning how to engage effectively with others.

Here are five steps library administrators can use to address conflict constructively—whether it shows up in email silence, staff meetings, or committee debates.

Step 1: Know Yourself and Your Colleagues

• Identify your own style: Are you the one pressing “send” quickly on tough issues (seeker), or are you the one hesitating (avoider)?
• Observe others: Do colleagues respond readily in meetings but go quiet in email? That’s often a conflict-avoidance signal.
• Ask (tactfully): “I like to address issues directly—what approach works best for you?”

Self-awareness, paired with awareness of others’ styles, sets the stage for handling conflict well.

Step 2: Anticipate Style Pairings

Conflict dynamics become more predictable once you recognize the styles at play:

• Both Avoiders → Silence dominates. One person must break it: “I know neither of us loves conflict, but let’s talk this through.”
• Both Seekers → Conversations can escalate quickly. Prepare in advance, allow breaks, and cool off if needed.
• Seeker + Avoider → The seeker may bulldoze; the avoider may retreat. Seeker should slow down and draw the other person in.
• Avoider + Seeker → The avoider risks being trampled. They need to assert needs clearly: “I’ll contribute fully if we slow down and keep the tone calm.”

These patterns often play out in committee debates, faculty-library collaborations, or staff workload discussions.

Step 3: Normalize Dissent

• Say out loud: “I expect disagreement—it helps us get stronger outcomes.”
• Frame silence as a problem: “If no one responds, I’ll assume we’re avoiding the real issue. Let’s name what’s on the table.”
• Recognize contributions from those who raise difficult but necessary questions.

By normalizing dissent, you encourage staff to respond to that “difficult email” rather than avoiding it.

Step 4: Anchor and Structure the Conversation

• Anchor in shared values: Connect discussions to equity, access, and student learning.
• Use a framework: The CALM approach—
  • Communication: Be clear about the stakes.
  • Adaptability: Adjust when valid concerns arise.
  • Learning: Treat disagreements as opportunities.
  • Management: Keep conversations focused with next steps.
• Set boundaries: If conflict escalates, pause the discussion or suggest revisiting after a break.

Step 5: Reflect and Learn

• After resolution, debrief: “What worked in this exchange? What can we do better next time?”
• Share lessons across committees or departments.
• Emphasize that speaking up—whether in email or meetings—is a professional responsibility, not a personal risk.

Closing Thought

Conflict in libraries often shows up as silence in an inbox. But avoiding conflict doesn’t eliminate it—it only pushes it underground. For administrators, the responsibility is to draw it into the open, structure it thoughtfully, and turn it into collaboration. By naming tension, normalizing dissent, and guiding conversations with empathy, you model that disagreement is not dangerous—it’s essential for growth and innovation.