You’re in the executive team meeting. Your colleague Geri interrupts you again, mid-sentence, to pitch her version of the project timeline. Heat rises in your chest. Your jaw clenches. Before you know it, you’ve dismissed her entire proposal with a curt “That won’t work,” and the meeting atmosphere has shifted from collaborative to combative.
Later, you replay the scene. Geri’s timeline was actually reasonable. So why did you react so strongly?
The answer lies in what I call your “well,” the source of information you draw from when making decisions about how to respond in interpersonal situations. This well governs your actions and reactions. And it gets poisoned by unexamined triggers, outdated patterns, and self-protective stories; even the most capable leaders can make choices that damage relationships, derail projects, and undermine their own effectiveness.
Three Levels of Data Processing and Contamination
When we’re in conflict or facing interpersonal challenges, we process information through three increasingly complex levels. Each level represents an opportunity for contamination or clarity.
Level 1: The Trigger Response
A trigger is an automatic physiological and emotional response to a stimulus. Daniel Goleman, in his work on emotional intelligence (1995), describes this as an “emotional hijacking,” when the amygdala responds to perceived threat before the prefrontal cortex can engage in rational analysis.
In our meeting example, Geri’s interruption triggered an automatic response. Triggers aren’t random. Triggers often stem from historical experiences, such as times when we were actually threatened, dismissed, or harmed. Psychiatrist Bessel van der Kolk’s research on trauma demonstrates that our nervous systems store these experiences and create rapid-response patterns designed to protect us from similar situations in the future.
Your trigger may stem from accurate historical data (you were regularly silenced by an older sibling or dismissed by a previous manager), but it is applied inappropriately to current circumstances. You’re drawing data from a well poisoned by past experiences.
Level 2: The Pattern Recognition
Once triggered, our brains immediately search for patterns. “Where have I felt this before? What does this mean?” What we are doing is actually a sophisticated cognitive function. Daniel Kahneman describes this as “System 1” thinking, which enables us to make rapid assessments based on our experience.
The challenge is that pattern recognition operates largely outside conscious awareness. You may not realize that Geri’s interruption activated a decades-old pattern (not being heard, having to fight for your space), resulting in you seeing people who look or sound like Geri as obstacles rather than allies.
Allowing this to remain unconscious puts you at risk. You’re now filtering all incoming data through the lens of this pattern. Confirmation bias kicks in, and you notice every time Geri talks over someone but miss the three times she actively championed your ideas. The pattern has become a filter, and the filter has poisoned the well.
Level 3: The Story Construction
The most insidious level of contamination comes from the stories we construct to make sense of our triggers and patterns. Psychologist Dan McAdams’ research on narrative identity shows that humans are fundamentally story-making creatures. We create narratives to explain our experiences and guide our actions.
However, in conflict, these stories often follow predictable and destructive patterns. Psychologist Stephen Karpman (1968) identified what he called the “Drama Triangle,” three roles people adopt in conflict:
- The Victim: “People always talk over me; I never get credit for my ideas.”
- The Persecutor: “Geri is deliberately trying to undermine me.”
- The Rescuer: “I need to protect the team from Geri’s aggressive behaviour.”
Each role comes with its own narrative, its own interpretation of incoming data, and its own prescribed actions, none of which may have anything to do with what’s actually happening.
Once you’ve cast yourself and others in these dramatic roles, you stop collecting accurate data altogether. You’re not hearing what Geri is actually saying; you’re hearing your story about what Geri is saying. You’re not responding to the present situation; you’re responding to your narrative about the problem.
The social psychologist Lee Ross (1977) referred to this as the “Fundamental Attribution Error.” We attribute others’ behaviour to their character (“Geri is domineering and disrespectful”) while attributing our own behaviour to circumstances (“I was just trying to move the meeting along”). This asymmetry in attribution fundamentally poisons the well.
Assessing Your Well’s Water Quality
The first step in cleaning your well is understanding its current state. Most leaders operate with contaminated data without realizing it. Here’s how to assess your situation:
- Trigger Identification: What physical sensations am I experiencing?
- Tightness in the chest or jaw
- Heat rising in the face or neck
- Stomach clenching
- Rapid heartbeat
- Desire to flee or fight
If you’re experiencing disproportionate physical activation, your trigger is activated. The data is about you, not necessarily about the situation.
- Pattern Recognition: When else have I felt this way?
- Does this feeling have a familiar quality?
- What’s the earliest memory I have of feeling this way?
- What situations reliably produce this response?
- What do those situations have in common?
If the same feeling appears across different contexts and relationships, you’ve identified a pattern. Pattern identification links you to your historical data. Remember, at this point, its applicability to the current situation is uncertain.
- Story Examination: What narrative am I creating about this person’s intent?
- Have I cast them as villain or Victim?
- Have I cast myself as Victim, Rescuer, or righteous enforcer?
- Do I know their motivations?
- Am I sure about what they meant?
If you’re operating with certainty about someone else’s intentions or character based on limited data, you’re constructing a story. Stories are interpretations, not facts.
Red Flags for Contaminated Data
You’re drinking from a poisoned well when you:
- Use absolute language: “She always…”, “He never…”, “They’re the kind of person who…”
- Feel sure about others’ motivations without having asked them directly.
- Notice your reaction feels larger than the situation warrants.
- Find yourself mentally rehearsing arguments or defenses.
- Experience the same conflict pattern across multiple relationships.
- Avoid specific conversations because you’re sure you know how they’ll go.
- Feel a strong need to be “right” rather than curious about what’s actually happening.
Cleaning Your Well
Cleaning your well isn’t about eliminating triggers; it’s about addressing them. Many triggers contain essential information about your values, boundaries, and needs. The cleaning is about separating accurate data from contaminated interpretation.
Step 1: Name the Trigger (Without Judgment)
For example, “I notice I’m having a strong reaction. My chest is tight, and I want to shut this conversation down. I recognize this as my ‘being dismissed’ trigger.”
Neuroscientist Matthew Lieberman’s research (2007) shows that affect labelling (putting feelings into words) reduces amygdala activity and increases prefrontal cortex engagement. Simply naming the trigger begins to shift you from reactive to reflective mode.
In the meeting with Geri, you might pause and think: “This is my interrupted trigger. I recognize this feeling.” Your job: acknowledge the trigger without letting it drive your next move.
Step 2: Investigate the Pattern (With Curiosity)
For example, “I notice this ‘being dismissed’ feeling shows up most intensely with confident people in positions of authority or expertise. It showed up with my department head in my last role, with my sister growing up, and now with Geri. The common thread seems to be: I feel I have to fight harder when the other person takes space confidently.”
Chris Argyris’s “Ladder of Inference” model shows how we select data based on our existing beliefs, which then reinforces those beliefs in a self-reinforcing loop. Investigating the pattern helps you see the loop you’re in.
You might journal or discuss with a trusted colleague: “I notice I react strongly when Geri speaks up. Let me think about when else I’ve had this reaction. What’s this pattern really about?”
Step 3: Expose the Story (And Test It)
For example, “The story I’m telling myself is that Geri doesn’t respect my expertise and is trying to dominate the team dynamic. But I realize this is my interpretation. I haven’t actually asked Geri about her intent. I’m in the ‘persecutor’ role, seeing her as a threat. What if there’s another explanation?”
Edgar Schein’s work on “Humble Inquiry” demonstrates that leaders who approach conflict with genuine curiosity, rather than certainty, foster stronger relationships and gather more accurate information. When leaders recognize a story as one possible interpretation rather than the truth, they open space for other data.
Transform your certainty into questions:
- Contaminated: “Geri is undermining me.”
- Cleaned: “I notice Geri jumped in before I finished. I’m curious whether she realized I wasn’t done, or whether she has concerns about the timeline I’m not aware of.”
Step 4: Ask Before Assuming
For example, “Geri, I want to make sure I understand your perspective on the timeline. When you jumped in earlier, I realized I might have missed something important. What concerns do you have about the approach I was outlining?”
Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler’s research on crucial conversations shows that successful conflict resolution hinges on creating “shared meaning,” ensuring all parties understand each other’s actual data and reasoning, rather than their assumptions about it.
Notice the difference:
- Poisoned approach: “Why did you interrupt me? You always do this.”
- Cleaned approach: “I want to understand your thinking on the timeline. What aspects concern you most?”
The first approach assumes intent and puts Geri on the defensive. The second approach seeks data and invites dialogue.
Step 5: Assess the Other’s Well
Once you’ve cleaned your own well, you’re in a position to assess the quality of data coming from the other person. Assessing others is the work that can only happen second, after you’ve done your own internal work first.
Data from others exists on several continuums:
Helpful ______ Unhelpful: Is this information actionable and relevant, or is it vague criticism?
Sincere _______ Insincere: Does their non-verbal communication match their words? Are they saying what they mean?
Conscious ______ Unconscious: Are they aware of their own triggers and patterns, or are they reacting unconsciously?
Self-focused ______ Other-focused: Are they considering the broader context and others’ needs, or solely focused on their own agenda?
After asking Geri about her timeline concerns, you listen to her response with these filters:
- She provides specific concerns about vendor lead times (helpful, specific data)
- Her body language matches her words (sincere)
- She references a previous project that went sideways due to timeline issues (conscious connection to experience)
- She mentions the impact on the team’s bandwidth (other-focused)
These responses are high-quality data from a relatively clean well. You can work with this.
Alternatively, if Geri responds defensively (“You never listen to anyone else’s ideas”), becomes vague (“I just don’t think it will work”), or makes it personal (“You’re too attached to your own plans”), these are signs that her well may also be contaminated. She may be in her own trigger-pattern-story cycle.
You cannot clean someone else’s well. You can only decide whether “their water is safe to drink,” whether their data is reliable enough to factor into your decision-making, and whether continued collaboration with this person is viable.
Common Pitfalls When Cleaning Your Well
Even with good intentions, leaders often stumble in these areas:
- Bypassing the internal work: You can’t jump straight to “assessing the other’s well” without first examining your own contamination.
- Using the framework as a weapon: “You’re clearly in your victim story” is not cleaning your well; it’s using psychological concepts to dismiss someone else’s experience. The framework is for self-assessment first.
- Expecting immediate clarity: Pattern recognition and story identification take time. You might not figure out your trigger in the moment. That’s fine. The practice gradually builds awareness over time.
- Confusing explanation with justification: Understanding why you have a trigger doesn’t mean you get to keep acting on it unconsciously. “I was triggered” is an explanation, not an excuse for poor behaviour.
- Forgetting that some wells actually are poisoned: Sometimes your trigger is telling you accurate information: this person isn’t trustworthy, this situation isn’t safe, this relationship isn’t healthy.
Next Steps: The One-Question Practice
Starting tomorrow, commit to this single practice: Before you react in any situation where you feel triggered, ask one clarifying question.
Examples:
- “What did you mean by…?”
- “Help me understand your thinking on…”
- “What am I missing about this situation?”
This simple practice interrupts the trigger-pattern-story cycle and begins cleaning your well. You don’t need to master all five steps immediately. You need to insert one question between your trigger and your response.
Over time, you’ll notice your conflict patterns shifting. Conversations that would have become combative become collaborative. People you would have written off as difficult reveal themselves as simply different. Situations that felt threatening reveal themselves as opportunities for growth.
Let me know how it goes. Send your questions or feedback to me at info@productiveconflict.us.
Thanks for reading!
Jennifer Jones-Patulli
Want to read more? Check out:
- Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow
- Karpman, S. (1968). “Fairy tales and script drama analysis,” Transactional Analysis Bulletin
- Patterson, K., et al. (2012). Crucial Conversations
- Schein, E. (2013). Humble Inquiry
- Eurich, T. (2017). Insight: The Surprising Truth About How Others See Us
- Van der Kolk, B. (2014). The Body Keeps the Score
