Think Fast Talk Smart: Communication Techniques - 323. Turn Up the Heat: Make Conflict More Constructive

Episode Date: September 14, 2026

“I’m not saying necessarily fight more, I’m saying fight better.”Conflict doesn’t have to mean avoidance or escalation. Priya Parker, expert facilitator, strategic advisor and author of The Art of Fighting: The Transformative Power of Conflict, argues there’s a third option: “healthy heat,” where disagreement is handled with enough care, curiosity, and even humor to become productive rather than destructive. In this episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, Parker joins Matt Abrahams to rethink how we approach disagreement. She explains why practicing low-stakes conflict can prepare us for harder conversations, how teams can build better systems for working through tension, and why the goal isn’t to fight more, but to fight better.Takeaways:Conflict can be productive when you learn to hold the heat. Rather than avoiding disagreement or letting it escalate, adding care, humor, and curiosity can turn tension into something clarifying and constructive.Don’t fight more, fight better. Preparing for difficult conversations, clarifying your purpose, and creating structures for disagreement can help teams address the issues that matter instead of avoiding them.Activity:Start a grapple. Identify one issue your team keeps avoiding or turning into a logistical discussion. Give it a dedicated meeting where the explicit purpose is to debate the issue, hear different viewpoints, make a decision, and commit to what happens next.Episode Reference Links:Priya ParkerPriya’s Books: The Art of Gathering / The Art of FightingEp.174 Fix Meetings: Transform Gatherings Into Meaningful Moments  Connect:Premium Signup >>>> Think Fast Talk Smart PremiumEmail Questions & Feedback >>> [e-mail] Transcripts >>> Think Fast Talk Smart WebsiteNewsletter Signup + English Language Learning >>> FasterSmarter.ioThink Fast Talk Smart >>> LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTubeMatt Abrahams >>> LinkedIn Chapters:(00:00) - Introduction (00:55) - Healthy Heat (01:54) - Practicing Disagreement (07:29) - Conflict in the Moment (10:19) - Normalizing Conflict (14:47) - Conflict as a Signal (17:29) - Starting the Conversation (20:25) - The Final Three Questions (23:51) - Conclusion

Adding warmth to heat can actually help your conflicts. My name's Matt Abraham's, and I teach strategic communication at Stanford Graduate School of Business. Welcome to Think Fast, Talk Smart, the podcast. Today I'm looking forward to once again speaking with Priya Parker. Priya is best known for her work, The Art of Gathering, how we meet and why it matters. She's an expert facilitator and strategic advisor. She's worked with many organizations and individuals worldwide to reimagine how we come together in both personal and professional settings. Her latest book is The Art of Fighting, The Transformative Power of Conflict.

Priya, thank you so much for joining me again. Our audience really enjoyed our previous conversation in episode 174. Thanks for being back. Thank you so much for having me. Excellent. Shall we get started? Let's do it. All right.

When you were last with us, you introduced the concept of heat in communication and relationships. And I know you've talked about healthy heat as a transformative tool. Can you help share what you mean by healthy heat? In so many workplaces and groups and friendships, when conflict arises, we tend to oscillate between two places, what I call unhealthy peace, which is conflict avoidance, pretending everything's fine, nothing to see here, folks, and unhealthy conflict. domination, escalation, abuse. And as a conflict resolution facilitator, I know that there's actually a third place, which is a very important place to be, which is what I call healthy heat. And healthy heat is the ability to hold friction or tension well between people with care, long enough for something to be generative or clarifying. So help me understand what are some of the ways of

generating healthy heat without burning down the house. And you use a great example in your book, The Art of Fighting, that really hit home for me. You talk about pineapple and ham pizza, which is a perpetual debate my wife and I had. How do you generate healthy heat in those moments? And you mentioned banter, which is something that really fascinates me. I think of banter as the elixir of pro-social conflict. Part of our fear of approaching conflict, and I have it as well, is that we are afraid that it's going to burn the house down. And part of what I began to see in teams, in restaurants, in organizations, in clubs that were able to have relevant conversations that scared the people in them, but were helpful to their performance and breakthrough, was that they added warmth to heat. And they

began to see that there are so many different ways to actually approach conversations and have actually energy and debate and controversy that also injects fun and humor and energy. One of the things I began to see in multiple different workplaces was that when people normalized or were invited into banter, like literally bantering with each other, whether it's part of the culture or whether they actually designed for it, low-stakes. arguing, help them prepare for high stakes arguing. And I was in a room in a tech company that was bringing together their leadership across a global organization, across a lot of departments. They needed, they were at a crossroads as a company. They needed to really have serious conversations

in which the conversations themselves, the arguments, the debates would affect the outcome of the direction they wanted to go as a company. So they needed like so many teams to be able to actually have good conversation. Anytime they'd sort of approach a more difficult or high stakes conversation, people would kind of lean out. And so on the first day, 500 people in this ballroom and the vice president of the company came out on stage and said, you know, I don't really want to start in a heavy place today, but we got a lot of work to do. And so we're going to start with five really important but controversial conversations. And he said, so the first one I want to really put to you all as leaders of this firm are is. And he put up a slide behind him. And it said,

pineapple on pizza. Yes or no? People are like, what the heck? And then he said, okay, turn to three people around you and debate for 15 minutes. People started turning to each other and started debating. And then the group that I was in, somebody was like, yum, it's amazing, salty and sweet. And someone else is like, this is disgusting. And someone else was like, well, I'm Italian and this is offensive to my tradition. You know, but all of a sudden people started laughing and chatting and the room changed. And then he came back and he said, okay, let's hear it out. And then he began to go from the small group to the large group where people started yelling out pros and cons for pineapple and pizza. And this group of people who, let alone, didn't know each other, had the social permission to argue about something that didn't matter, but that they felt strong. about was actually injecting warmth into the room to help them practice actually disagreeing with one another. And immediately, it basically gives people humor, banter, and social permission to actually be, I don't want to use the word antagonistic, but actually turn to each other and have a different form of interaction that's related to controversy, but infuses fun. And those are two elements,

two ingredients and communication and in an interpersonal interaction that often doesn't go together. But when it does, it begins to help you approach the heat to realize, oh, there's so many ways we can do this. I really like this idea of adding warmth to heat, which plays on lots of words, but really taps into some foundational principles in communication by bringing connection and levity and in service of practicing how we're going to interact with each other. So it's a way of warming up and practicing and showing respect and something that doesn't really matter that can be really close to people. If you listen to Think Fast Talk Smart, you know I believe communication is something we can all get better at. And getting better takes more than simply learning new ideas. It takes practice. That's why I love teaching communication essentials for work and life through Stanford Continuing Studies. We explore the communication

challenges that show up in everyday life, how to be more persuasive, tell better stories, strengthen your presence, navigate difficult conversations, and connect with others more effectively. Along the way, you'll hear from expert guest speakers, learn practical techniques, and most importantly, have opportunities to put those ideas into practice. My goal is simple, to help you become a more confident, clear, and effective communicator at work and in your life. If that sounds like something you'd like to work on, I'd love to have you join me. Learn more and sign up at continuing studies.

Stanford. Dot,edu slash TFTS. That's continuing studies. dot Stanford. dot edu slash TFTS. I'd like to move to right in the moment when conflict is generating. There's a difference between identifying a dispute and actually addressing it. Yes.

When we're caught in a spontaneous moment where a disagreement just flares up, what's the best way to address that? Is there a conversational framework for naming it, honestly, without immediately triggering the person and getting into a full-on conflict right away? One of the things I did with the art of fighting was I began to look at places that actually fight well. One of the types of teams I looked at were restaurants, in part because restaurants have inbuilt, 110 micro conflicts every night of service. And I looked at this restaurant called Canlis. Part of what they do as a team is they assume that there will be disagreement and conflict between every employee at some point or another.

And they find ways to ritualize it, to normalize it, and to be able to have a place to diagnose what's happening and then also have a second moment to go and deal with it. If the team is sort of snapping at each other while preparing the evening's meals or cleaning up after clothes and someone can hear something's, you know, starting to really bubble between two employees, you may actually hear one of the owners or the chef or any leader of the organization yell on the floor, take it to the hooch. And the staff involved in the exchange, as irritated as they might be, drop what they're doing and file into a secret room they've built in the restaurant for these purposes specifically created to relieve tension in the heat of battle. And you sneak

downstairs in this funny little room in the basement of the basement and it's time to talk. How do you decide what to do in the heat of the moment? Really, teams and organizations that have group intelligence are starting to find ways to normalize, ritualize, and give both tools and places and skills for people to be able to actually have the argument and not rely so deeply on the, you know, on putting it on the weight of the individual. In fact, one of the things I actually have it with me, Candace has come out with an employee manual. It's the first time I've ever seen an employee manual that doesn't look at if conflict arises,

you have to go to HR, right? Or if conflict arises, you have to go to alternative dispute resolution. They actually have conflict as one of the core ways their team builds trust. They have a three-page manual on what to actually do in the moment. And the first thing they say is assume the best in others and look for their true north. Wow. That's so powerful to build it into the way you do business. I appreciate the idea of normalizing it, that conflict is natural and normal.

And when you bring people together who are good at what they do and passionate, conflict is going to arise. The ritualizing part I'm curious about, I can see a leader saying, hey, we support conflict that's healthy, that's respectful. What are some other very specific actionable tools to help ritualize it so it becomes part of what we do in our daily lives? I mean, the first is talking about conflict, shifting our mental model of conflict as something that's dysfunctional, that's something that's functional, meaning, that it serves a purpose and that it's not not all conflict is good. Some conflict can be toxic.

Some conflict can be deeply unhealthy. But first is normalizing and saying there are certain conversations that we actually have to have in which there's going to be disagreement. There's going to be passion in part because these questions affect us, right? Like heat is relevance. And so where and how do we begin to hold these conversations with care? I worked with a tech team a few years ago where they realized. that every time at their weekly leadership meeting, every time a really kind of thorny issue would come up that really was related to kind of who they were as a company and the core direction

they were going to go. Either they'd run out of time or it'd be so scary. Someone would inevitably sort of turn it into a logistical conversation. Like it's a communication move. Like, oh, well, we don't have time to do that. Or well, actually, we shouldn't even talk about that because we don't have the bandwidth to actually implement that. The leader of the organization, the CEO, came to me and basically said, these are the conversations we deeply need to have, but it feels actually scary to have them in our regular leadership meeting. Can you help us design a meeting? So we came up with the solution to create a new type of meeting, specifically for these larger, thornyer questions. And we called it a grapple. And the company's leader sent out a document describing the purpose of the new meeting. The purpose was,

our job as a leadership team is to discuss, debate, and quote, grapple with large strategic issues that are critical to us achieving our ambitious goals. And then they listed three factors that would trigger a grapple. One, a high level of uncertainty in the outcome. Two, a broad range of opinions among the leadership team on how we should handle the issue. And three, a significant level of risk to our long-term success. What this team was doing was they were raising the group intelligence level of all of the leaders to begin to listen differently, to say, what are the conversations that rise to a grapple? And then they laid out four principles that would guide them through these hot topic discussions

and outlined it in an internal document with me, which I have permission to share. So one, we create an inclusive way of grappling so that diverse viewpoints are heard, understood, and considered. We create a space for synchronous discussion and debate. We make a call on the issue at hand and commit as a team within a given time frame. And we live into the decision with new behaviors that we practice and hold each other accountable to. And so they did two things here, which having the intelligence to, it's almost like an early warning system to know what are the triggers for the type of conversation that requires a different type of meeting. And then the second, what are the print of the infrastructure of that meeting to make it a success.

So much value in that response. First and foremost, the idea that heat is all about relevance and that you can set up almost a early detection system, train people to look for it. I like the three criteria you used, uncertainty, broad base of different opinions, and there's some kind of threat. So as you're listening, as you're engaged in the conversation, you're searching out signals of those. And if they exist, then in essence, you say it's time to grapple. And a grapple has really specific steps to it. And people commit to that, to those steps. So in essence,

you're giving people a framework through which to have that discussion and you're naming it. One thing that I found really interesting in your book as you're talking about conflict is that you say conflict can be a sign that the group should evolve or disband. So it's actually a signal for movement. How can we use the friction of a fight to diagnose whether a team or community needs to evolve or it simply has run its course and we should disband? What are we looking for there? I structured the art of fighting into the natural cycle groups go through when they have an existential fight. And so the types of fights I'm really interested in, in part because I'm a facilitator and these are the fights that I'm brought into to help groups hold, aren't all types of fights.

They're not fights for dominance. They're not fights for extremely bad behavior. They're not fights for what temperature the AC should be on in the building. There are a specific type of fight, which is what I call an existential fight, which is when a majority of a group has to ask or grapple with the question, well, who are we? And how do we do things around here? Right? What kind of church are we? What kind of football team are we? The other thing is groups can't actually form or evolve without a fight. So often a group starts because of a need or a company starts because of a need in the marketplace or a need in the public. But for groups to actually evolve, fights trigger the conversations we've been avoiding. And part of what happens when a group has to face a certain conversation is all of the questions that often lay below the surface come to a head.

And this often happens at moments of gatherings. Gatherings so often that are the forcing mechanisms to have the fights that make us decide aloud who we are and who we're going to be. And it is at some point a decision that you have to make if we want to continue. being or not. Absolutely. The point that evolution in groups and teams is predicated on tension, on fighting, on challenge is one that's really insightful because as a leader, as a manager, as a participant in a group or a team, rather than avoiding it, I should be seeking it out or at least trying to

figure out where those tension points are to help the group grow. Yeah, I would be curious about it. And so part of the invitation to have how to become an artful fighter is to start noticing when are the conversations happening that are more likely going to trigger existential conflict and how to get both curious about it and good at it. And you mentioned earlier that notion of we don't want just logistics to to bowl over potential rich conversation around conflict. If someone listening or watching right now wants to initiate a conflict that they've been avoiding,

what might be the best opening sentence or way to get that conversation going that will lead to hopefully good heat and productive outcomes? I first would go through a checklist in oneself, which is what is my purpose in having this conversation? What is my intention? Do I think that by saying something I'm able to alter a situation? could I meaningfully engage without saying something? Right? So some of these are diagnostic tools to get better at understanding when to face something and when not to. Chapter three of the art of fighting is actually when not to face.

And so a huge part of what I'm saying is not just, you know, dive into all conflict everywhere, always. Like I'm not saying necessarily fight more. I'm saying fight better. And so the first is to diagnose what is the conversation I want to have? how do I increase the likelihood that it goes well? Part of what the skill is in one's own self is figuring out what is the need and then how do you find the right languaging? Because 90% of the success of a fight or a gathering happens before anyone has entered. And so part of what you're trying to do in that situation is making sure that you're setting yourself up or setting other people up to have the right fight.

The correction you gave me of don't go into it thinking I'm going to have a conflict, think it's a conversation. and then understand what it is you're hoping to get out of it and what you need. And I really like the idea of how you frame it and what you do in advance sets you up for success. Many of us are so fixated on the actual event. We don't think about what we can do in advance to help ourselves get ready. And your art of gathering was a masterclass for me in thinking that through. Let's take a quick break for a word from our sponsor, strawberry.me. The real value of coaching is what it helps you.

see and what it helps you do differently. I have been coached and I have coached others. And for me, the value is clarity. Seeing what you're doing well, where you're getting in your own way, and what you can do differently. And if you're watching this, I'm guessing you're someone who wants to keep improving. That might mean communicating with more confidence, becoming a stronger leader, or getting clearer about your next career move. Strawberry.comMe is like therapy for your career. They match you with a coach who fits your goals and gives you practical, personalized guidance you can actually use. It's all designed to make coaching more financially accessible, and because it's online, you can use it from anywhere in the world. Visit strawberry.combe slash smart to get 50% off of your session and make sure you tell them Matt sent you.

Well, Priya, I knew this was going to be great because we've had previous conversations and your work is so meaningful and helpful to everyone. I'd like to end, as we always do, with three questions. One I'm going to make up just for you. And the other two, you had a chance to answer before. I'm going to see if they're a little different now that you've spent some time thinking about conflict and healthy heat in a different way. You up for that? I'm up for it.

All right. First question. In the art of gathering, you talked about the container of a meeting or event and how important the physical and virtual space can be in influencing how communication unfolds. When it comes to fighting, talk to me about. the importance of virtual communication and how we can leverage it. The physical environment deeply affects the room and the Zoom and the conflict. And so a couple of tips on virtual life is, first of all, sometimes Zoom actually really helps

conversations because Zoom is an inherent equalizer if you know how to use it well. I work with a multi-generational family that could never, one of the blockages to their to their fight was that they couldn't agree on where to meet. Who's hosting? Who's paying? How much is an airplane? What does it actually mean to gather in that spot? And so our breakthrough actually happened because all four siblings could zoom in from their own home. Right. And so don't assume all zooms are bad. Think about the tools that you have and how do you create an ecosystem that allows you to get up the conversations that you want given the given the infrastructure you have.

So really thinking through how the virtual can be a benefit can help. Question number two, who is a communicator that you admire and why? I deeply admire Mayer Zaraan Mamdani. I think he's an extraordinary communicator, both from his embodiment, his physicality as a communicator. He wants to be where he is, which I think is actually a really powerful force. You know, sometimes you see people communicating and they may be saying the perfect speech, but actually you can tell like they're not, their heart isn't really in it.

I think he's a very embodied leader. And I think he's a brilliant communicator in terms of being able to actually talk about issues across communities that are high wire acts and always come from what his values are and inviting people into, world in which everyone gets to experience those values. Excellent. So I like this idea of being an embodied communicator. Be there and help others see that you really want to be there. Final question.

What are the first three ingredients that go into a successful communication recipe? Clarity of purpose. Clarity of audience and specificity. Clarity of purpose and audience makes a lot of sense. You've talked a lot about that both in your book, The Art of Gathering and the Art of Fighting, and then making sure that you have a clear outcome in mind. Thank you, Priya. I knew from our last meeting that this was going to be a great conversation.

Thank you for helping us to hold heat and really see the value that conversations that involve conflict can have in our organizations and in our lives. Thank you so much for having me. Thank you for joining us for another episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, the podcast. To learn more from Priya Parker, check out episode 174. It was great again learning from Priya. The one thing I'm taking away that really stood out to me was that you can add warmth,

connection, levity to your conversations that will help you be better at solving the more tangled and difficult conversations and conflict that we have. This episode was produced by Catherine Reed, Ryan Campos, and me, Matt Abraham's. Our music is from Floyd Wonder, with special thanks to Podium Podcast Company. Please find us on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. Be sure to check out FasterSmarter.io for deep dive videos, English language learning content, and our newsletter.