Relational Resilience: Navigating Conflict vs. Resolving It

Life Science Marketing Radio

I’ve never been great at conflict. Like a lot of people, I’ve leaned toward avoiding it—especially in the workplace. But I know that’s not a useful strategy in the long run, which is why I was excited to talk with Deb Nathan, a conflict navigation coach, on Life Science Marketing Radio.

Right off the bat, Deb drew a distinction between conflict resolution and conflict navigation. Resolution implies there’s a clear “winner” and “loser” or at least a compromise everyone can agree on—but let’s be honest, that’s not always possible. Navigation, on the other hand, is about figuring out how to work with each other even when we disagree. It’s about forward momentum, not just agreement.

Deb reminded me (and all of us, really) that conflict isn’t inherently bad. In fact, it’s often the spark for meaningful change—personally and organizationally. The issue isn’t the conflict itself but how we choose to engage with it.

What Is Relational Resilience?

Deb introduced a concept I hadn’t considered before: relational resilience. I’m used to hearing resilience in terms of the individual—bounce back, stay strong, push through. But relational resilience is about how teams manage conflict together. It’s rooted in the idea that we’re stronger and more creative when we work through challenges collaboratively rather than individually.

She outlined several components that make up relational resilience:

* Relational flexibility – being open to hearing and holding multiple perspectives, including conflicting ideas inside your own head.

* Relational confidence – allowing yourself to be vulnerable, which is only possible if the team environment supports that.

* Mutual empowerment – shifting from "self-empowerment" to a model where team members lift each other up.

* Creativity and imagination – thinking beyond current possibilities and co-creating new solutions.

* Appreciating complexity – resisting the urge to simplify when a nuanced approach is more useful. (This is probably my favorite.)

* Tensionality – the ability to stay engaged with someone else’s perspective while still holding your own.

* Comfort with uncertainty – resisting the rush to answers when patience could produce better outcomes.

* Reasonable hope – a grounded belief that things can improve with effort, even if it’s not easy.

It’s a powerful framework, and it aligns with how I like to think: long-term, with an eye on creating something that lasts.

Vulnerability as a Leadership Skill

When we got into the topic of vulnerability, Deb made a point I’ve seen play out in real life. The best managers I’ve had were the ones who gave me space to try things—even when those things didn’t work out. They made it safe to take risks. And when something failed it was a learning experience, not a career-ending mistake.

Deb emphasized that leaders don’t need to have all the answers or even agree with every idea. What they do need is to create an environment where people feel safe to experiment and speak up. That’s where vulnerability comes in—not just for individuals, but systemically. Managers who can admit uncertainty, invite multiple viewpoints, and reflect on outcomes together build healthier, more resilient teams.

Curiosity Is a Superpower

If you’ve listened to more than a few episodes of this podcast, you know I’m a big fan of curiosity. So is Deb. She described curiosity as the antidote to stagnation, a skill that allows us to continually learn, adapt, and better understand each other. Without it, we default to fixed positions, binary thinking, and conflict escalation.

Curiosity means asking open-ended questions, exploring ideas we don’t initially agree with, and staying open to being surprised. For leaders, modeling curiosity invites that mindset across a team. It tells people their ideas matter—even if they’re different or incomplete.

And while curiosity might sound like a soft skill, it has very real impacts on innovation, team cohesion, and ultimately, performance.

Not subscribed? Let’s fix that, shall we? Subscribe for free to receive new posts by email. (No spam. I promise.)

Time Pressure vs. Long-Term Thinking

We also talked about time pressure. What happens when you're in conflict at work but feel like there's no time to sit down and work it out?

Deb’s answer was clear: if you don’t make time for it now, you’ll pay for it later—probably with more time, stress, and friction. Trying to push through without dealing with the real issue often leads to bigger breakdowns down the line. On the flip side, making space for dialogue (even just a little) can result in more durable solutions.

One of the ways to manage that time pressure, she said, is to get comfortable with not having immediate clarity. Sometimes the best thing a team can do is agree to keep talking, keep listening, and let the path forward emerge gradually.

Culture, Communication, and Cross-Team Collaboration

Later in the conversation, we got into cultural differences—across nationalities, disciplines, even departments. Deb’s background includes working with Israeli and Palestinian teens, and the lessons she learned there are surprisingly transferable to corporate teams.

The core idea: everyone brings their own lens to every conversation. We all interpret language, data, and goals differently. That’s even true when we’re technically speaking the same language. (I learned this while teaching sailing to someone from the UK—turns out “quite good” doesn’t mean the same thing in both countries.)

Within scientific companies, this plays out between technical teams and commercial teams, or between different functional areas. The solution? Again, it comes back to curiosity and creating space for people to explain their views before rushing to fix the “problem.”

Deb made a powerful point: even when people don’t agree, they can still work together if they respect where the other is coming from. That opens up new ways forward.

From Leads to Loyalty: Marketing with Relationship in Mind

Finally, I asked Deb to tie this all back to marketing. So many companies still operate with a “get me leads” mentality—but in reality, lasting impact comes from relationships, not transactions.

She was clear: if you want lasting value, you need relational resilience. Short-term wins might feel good, but it’s long-term trust that gets you through hard times and keeps customers coming back. That mindset applies to internal culture, too. If you're only focused on extracting value from employees during their two-year tenure, you're missing the chance to build something better—something that retains talent and gets stronger over time.

The Bottom Line

This conversation made me think more deeply about how we show up in teams—not just in crisis or disagreement, but every day. Deb’s framework of relational resilience gives us a better way to build cultures that support creativity, growth, and real collaboration.

For marketers, for scientists, for managers, for anyone in business: this isn’t about being soft. It’s about being smart. It’s about recognizing that long-term thinking, curiosity, and vulnerability aren’t just nice-to-haves—they’re the foundation of meaningful progress.

Your deepest insights are your best branding. I’d love to help you share them. Chat with me about custom content for your life science brand. Or visit my website.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cclifescience.substack.com