In this interview, I speak to Robert C. Bordone (Bob) – an internationally recognised expert, author, speaker, and teacher in negotiation, conflict resolution, mediation, and facilitation, recently selected as one of the Top 30 Negotiation Professionals . A Senior Fellow at Harvard Law School, he served on the full-time faculty at Harvard Law School for more than twenty years as the Thaddeus R. Beal Clinical Professor of Law, Director, and Founder of the Harvard Negotiation & Mediation Clinical Program before launching his full-time consulting, advisory, speaking, and training practice. He also serves as the Director of the Consensus Building Institute Professional Development Academy and as an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Bob has has also been a Visiting Clinical Professor of Conflict Transformation at Boston University’s School of Theology.
We discuss the key topics in his new book Conflict Resilience, where he brings together advanced conflict management strategies with cutting-edge neuroscience to give us a unique framework for negotiation and managing conflict.
Q: What is conflict resilience?
[Bob Bordone]: We see conflict resilience as distinct from—yet a prerequisite to—conflict resolution. Specifically, conflict resilience is the capacity to sit with the discomfort of disagreement in the first place. It’s a leadership quality that integrates various skills, most notably genuine, curious listening and effective assertion—the ability to articulate one’s experience authentically in a way that isn’t avoidant but increases the likelihood of being heard.
As for why it’s important, I’d say it has always been crucial. However, one concerning trend is that we seem to have less of it than we used to. Conflict resilience hasn’t been widely named or recognised as a concept, but my first real awareness of it—though not my first experience—came while teaching at Harvard Law School, where I taught for 21 years. I noticed a marked shift in how students engaged across political differences. Specifically, they stopped engaging altogether.
As a member of the admissions committee, I knew we were still bringing in politically diverse students, yet classroom discussions had grown dull. Increasingly, students seemed uncomfortable with open disagreement—sometimes for valid reasons, like fear of being “canceled” or having their words misrepresented online. Other times, the reasons were more about convenience—social media makes it easy to retreat into echo chambers rather than engage in difficult conversations.
The result is a growing cost: the less we engage with those who think differently, the more we demonise them. That demonisation can become dehumanising, reinforcing the idea that we have nothing in common. Worse still, when someone dares to engage across ideological lines, they risk being branded a traitor by their own group. Over the past decade, this dynamic has only intensified.
Q: What are the key steps of conflict resilience?
[Bob Bordone]: We wanted to make this as practical as possible. The “Name” piece is what we call the self-work—identifying the internal conflicts, ambivalences, and stories that can make us unwilling or unable to engage in difficult conversations. Sometimes, we’re comfortable engaging on one side but hesitant on the other. A simple example: weighing the reasons to raise an issue with someone at work versus the reasons not to. If we don’t name this internal conflict, we default to habitual responses—some of us flee, others fawn. We actually talk about five different “F” responses.
The “Explore” piece asks: now that we’ve done this self-work, how do we open the conversation? What words do we use? How do we combine listening with genuine curiosity, rather than just perform it? What does assertion look like in contrast to aggression or a “my way or the highway” approach? This section breaks those ideas down with concrete examples, illustrating what real-life engagement would look like—almost as if we were filming it.
The “Commit” piece considers multiple levels of engagement. If this is a negotiation, do I agree, or do I walk away? If this is a relationship, do I continue engaging on difficult issues—whether it’s Ukraine, immigration, or our company’s five-year strategy? Or have we reached the point where we need to agree to disagree? And in some cases, how do I determine whether this is no longer about conflict resilience but about harm or trauma—meaning I should walk away entirely?
A key theme throughout is the importance of building conflict resilience without misunderstanding it as an obligation to endure damage, harm, or trauma. The commit section of the book unpacks these critical distinctions.
Q: How do we apply conflict resilience to cross cultural issues which are now much more nuanced than simply country differences?
[Bob Bordone]: I really appreciate thinking of culture as broader than just Japanese, European, or American. As you mentioned, there are also political cultures and professional cultures. I work with doctors, therapists, and lawyers—each with radically different approaches to conflict.
One key realisation for me in writing this book, especially since I co-wrote it with a brain scientist, is that we can actually retrain our brains to think about and handle conflict differently. Some of this comes down to self-awareness, but also to taking intentional pauses that help us recognise what we’re feeling. There’s a lot of research on affective labeling—the act of naming our emotions and fears—which helps reduce what’s called limbic irritability. This, in turn, makes it easier to stay in the conversation.
Another thing I’d say is that sometimes the first hard conversation isn’t really about the issue itself—it’s about figuring out how we can have the conversation in a way that doesn’t leave one of us running for the hills or the other one ready to lash out. That doesn’t mean it will go perfectly smoothly, but taking that initial step to set parameters and ground rules can make it a little less fraught.
Q: How is the digital world affecting conflict resilience?
[Bob Bordone]: For most situations requiring conflict resilience—where perception, emotion, and bad feelings are messy—WhatsApp and email are difficult to make work. The key is to recognise tension or ambiguity early and, if possible, address it in person. If that’s not an option, a live video conversation is the next best thing.
One reason conflict resilience has declined is that it’s become easier to fire off a snarky message or simply block someone and move on. This is where brain science plays a role. Whatever our default response—fight or flee—social media makes it easier to act on. If we share physical space, avoidance has limits; I can leave the room, but I might still run into you in the hallway. Online, though, I can just delete, mute, or block you with no further engagement.
That said, I don’t want to suggest that social media and technology have no place in conflict resolution or negotiation—of course, they can be useful, even necessary, for many reasons. But when a conflict escalates to the point that it keeps you up at night or has you venting to a friend about what someone just said, that’s a sign to stop relying on text-based communication and shift to a more direct, real-time method.
Q: It seems there are quite acute generational differences in conflict resilience, with younger generations coming through now being less resilient to difficult situations?
[Bob Bordone]: I’d like to add a generational angle here—one that we likely share but that younger generations may not. Your question assumes that engaging in difficult conversations is worthwhile and important. But in my experience, a shift began around 2015, marking a divide between my Gen X perspective and that of solidly Millennial generations. The mindset became: Why waste my time engaging with someone I don’t agree with? The world is big, and I need to focus on surviving.
I bring this up because one of the key ideas in our book—where brain science research is particularly valuable—is that people need to see what’s called a BBO, a “Bigger, Better Offer,” on the other side of the effort. Without that incentive, they won’t be interested in doing the work. For readers who may be from a different generation or simply thinking, I’m busy, this isn’t a priority for me, I want to clarify that the BBO isn’t necessarily agreement—though sometimes it is. More often, the BBO is about increasing connection, building trust, and seeing others as three-dimensional. This, in turn, makes it easier to collaborate in other areas, whether at work, in family relationships, or within civil society.
And frankly, that kind of engagement is essential—whether to keep a workplace functioning, hold a family together, or prevent a society from breaking down into violence. That’s the BBO. I know I didn’t directly answer your question, but I wanted to make the case for that first…
Q: Can the principles of conflict resilience help with conflicts in extremis – say, international disputes?
[Bob Bordone]: I think conflict resilience is absolutely essential for that. One of the things that drew me to this work was spending over 20 years at Harvard Law School’s Program on Negotiation and seeing leaders like Richard Holbrooke, who brokered the Kosovo settlement, and Senator George Mitchell, who negotiated the Good Friday Accords. These were people sitting across from individuals who were not always savoury characters—some were outright butchers. But short of complete conquest—and even then, as with Japan’s surrender in World War II, where terms still had to be negotiated—you have to be able to sit with extreme discomfort.
To be clear, we’re not saying that the average person in an office in London needs to operate at that level, but the skill of conflict resilience is still critical, just on a different scale. This is also where the question of harm comes in. If someone has experienced repeated harassment, should they be the one engaging in dialogue about sexual harassment? No—that’s for someone else to take on. But the broader capacity for conflict resilience remains necessary.
If our approach to conflict is simply my way or the highway, slamming fists on the table and shutting people down, that doesn’t solve the problem. If I have power, I might be able to force submission, but that’s a short-term fix that only breeds resentment. Conflict resilience, at the very least, gives us a chance—not necessarily to become best friends, but to find a resolution that stands a better chance of lasting.
Q: How do you meaningfully build trust in complex negotiations?
[Bob Bordone]: One of the key ideas in our book—though it’s not primarily about peace negotiations—is how to be the first mover in creating a trusting environment. We might call this a first move of vulnerability. But the challenge is doing so without overexposing yourself. A key part of conflict resilience is changing the script.
Whether it’s with your boss, in a negotiation at the WTO, or with your father-in-law, conflict patterns tend to be predictable. And while those patterns may be unpleasant, they offer a certain comfort in their familiarity. The biggest shift, then—and this ties into the naming piece—is taking what we recognise internally and bringing it into the conversation.
Let me be more concrete, because this can sound abstract. Imagine the start of a difficult conversation in a tense relationship. You might say: There’s a part of me that feels really anxious and unsure if this is worth it. But there’s another part of me that thinks we might be able to talk about this differently. Even if we don’t fully agree, maybe that could change how we engage. I’m curious—what’s your reaction to that? Because I’d really like to try something different.
You haven’t conceded anything, but you’ve shifted the dynamic. The other person might respond with skepticism—Did you read a book? Where is this coming from?—but you’ve still changed the script. It’s a form of transparency and vulnerability, but it’s not a dramatic leap; you haven’t exposed yourself completely or surrendered your position.
Now, yes, you could be hurt if the response is: I have no interest in this conversation. But if that’s a real, non-reactive answer, it’s better to know now than to invest three more years in a dead-end dynamic. If it’s work-related, update your CV. If it’s a relationship, it might be time to move on.
Q: What are the common mistakes you see people making in negotiations?
[Bob Bordone]: I’d say one of the biggest common mistakes is the belief that conflict is bad. This is an attitudinal issue—if conflict is seen as inherently negative, the goal becomes eliminating it, often in one of two ways. One, by ignoring it and hoping it disappears on its own. Or two, if you’re in a leadership position, by stepping in with authority to impose a resolution. The reframe here is that conflict is good—it signals that people feel safe enough to bring their differences into the room. The real question is: How do you handle it? And can you improve your ability to manage it in ways that make the organisation more dynamic and resilient?
The Boeing example is a great case of “conflict is bad” thinking—where differing views were silenced rather than addressed, leading to catastrophic failures. That wasn’t an engineering problem—it was an organisational conflict resilience problem.
The second major mistake is misdiagnosis. Teams often think they’re arguing about a specific issue—strategy, pay disputes, accountability for mistakes—when in reality, what’s driving the conflict is something deeper: relational and emotional tensions. The tendency is to dismiss these as irrelevant—We need to be rational and focus on the problem, not emotions. But when the real issue is about identity, trust, or fairness, ignoring those factors doesn’t make them disappear. Addressing them directly isn’t about therapy—it’s an efficiency move. Effective mediators recognise this: if you’re not even fighting about the right thing, resolution will remain out of reach.
The third mistake comes from leadership, either by failing to equip teams with the actual tools needed for conflict resilience—through professional development—or by offering training without creating a broader system that supports it. Conflict resilience isn’t something people naturally pick up by observation—especially since much of what we see modelled isn’t particularly skillful. Some organisations do invest in training, but if the system itself doesn’t reinforce and reward conflict resilience, those efforts won’t stick. To do this well, you need both—the skills and the structural support—and while it requires investment, the long-term benefits are significant.