PeaceDNA for HR Professionals
Three Applied Training Curricula for Workplace Conflict
PeaceDNA gives HR professionals a shared language and process for navigating person-to-person workplace conflict. It can help HR slow down an exchange, separate observable events from interpretations, improve listening, and guide employees toward practical agreements.
PeaceDNA has three steps:
- Conditions: Are the people willing, ready, safe, and reasonably able to participate peacefully?
- Conflict Positions: What are each person’s Facts, Feelings, and Beliefs? And how are they connected?
- Remedy: What does each person want, and what will each person do?
Three supporting skills help move the process forward:
- FOUL Buster: Redirects a non-dangerous verbal attack toward the underlying Conflict Problem.
- Kanji Listening: Helps the listener understand before evaluating, advising, or responding.
- Rephrase for Yes: Reflects a person’s meaning as a question they can confirm or correct.
PeaceDNA is not a substitute for an investigation, legal review, disciplinary process, collective-bargaining obligation, safety response, or required report. Its best use is ordinary workplace conflict in which honest and voluntary dialogue remains reasonably possible.
Curriculum One: HR Coaching for Employee Self-Defense
Purpose
This curriculum teaches HR professionals how to coach an employee who is facing a difficult workplace interaction. The employee may need help responding without:
- Counterattacking
- Admitting something that is untrue
- Accepting an insulting label
- Escalating the Conflict
- Remaining in an unsafe or coercive conversation
“Self-defense” means protecting one’s dignity, boundaries, employment interests, and ability to make deliberate choices.
Recommended Format
Three 45-minute sessions:
- Assess the situation.
- Prepare the employee’s response.
- Practice the conversation and choose the next step.
Session One: Assess Before Coaching
Learning goals
HR participants will learn to:
- Separate ordinary Conflict from possible misconduct.
- Determine whether an informal conversation is appropriate.
- Identify power differences and retaliation risks.
- Help the employee separate Facts, Feelings, and Beliefs.
- Avoid promising confidentiality that HR cannot guarantee.
Scenario: The Public Criticism
Alex tells HR:
“My manager humiliated me in front of the whole department. She wants me to fail.”
During a meeting, Alex’s manager, Dana, had said:
“This report contains mistakes we should have caught before presenting it. Alex, I need you to pay closer attention.”
Alex wants HR to “make Dana apologize.”
HR’s first responsibility
HR should not immediately decide that:
- Dana humiliated Alex.
- Alex is overreacting.
- The incident is merely a misunderstanding.
- Dana intended to make Alex fail.
- A direct conversation will solve the Problem.
HR first checks the Conditions.
Conditions questions
The HR professional might ask:
- “Do you feel safe speaking with Dana?”
- “Could you disagree without fearing punishment?”
- “Has anything similar happened before?”
- “Did Dana make comments about a protected characteristic?”
- “Has your work, schedule, pay, evaluation, or access changed?”
- “What outcome are you hoping HR can help create?”
- “Are you asking for coaching, informal intervention, or a formal review?”
HR should also explain the limits of confidentiality:
“I will handle this information as carefully as possible. However, if you describe conduct that the organization must investigate or report, I may need to involve others.”
Sorting the Conflict Position
HR helps Alex separate the account:
| Part | Alex’s account |
| Fact | Dana identified mistakes in Alex’s report during a department meeting. |
| Feeling | Alex felt embarrassed, exposed, angry, and worried. |
| Belief | Alex believed Dana’s comment damaged Alex’s professional reputation. |
| Unconfirmed belief | Dana wants Alex to fail. |
| Want | Alex wants the concern addressed and does not want future corrections delivered publicly. |
This separation does not deny Alex’s experience. It prevents an unconfirmed belief from becoming the automatic starting point.
HR practice prompt
How could HR validate Alex without confirming Dana’s intention?
A strong response might be:
“You felt publicly singled out, and you believe the comment may have affected how your coworkers see your competence. Is that accurate?”
This Rephrase for Yes question confirms Alex’s experience without declaring Dana’s motive to be fact.
Session Two: Coach the Response
HR asks Alex whether a direct conversation is reasonably possible. Alex says yes but expects Dana to become defensive.
Together, they prepare an opening:
“I understand that the report contained errors. When my name was used during the department meeting, I felt embarrassed because I believed my overall competence was being questioned. In the future, could individual performance concerns be discussed privately?”
This statement:
- Acknowledges the report problem.
- Identifies the observable event.
- Names the feeling.
- Explains the belief.
- Makes a specific request.
Preparing for a verbal FOUL
Dana might respond:
“You are being too sensitive. Professionals need to accept criticism.”
Alex practices a FOUL Buster:
“Are you saying the main concern is how I receive feedback, or are there additional concerns about my work?”
This does not accept the label “too sensitive.” It asks Dana to identify the underlying Conflict Problem.
Another possible response is:
“What would you like me to do differently when receiving corrective feedback?”
If Dana presents a broad judgment as fact—“Everyone finds you difficult.”—Alex can ask:
“What specific conduct has been reported as difficult?”
This invites evidence without accusing Dana of lying.
Session Three: Practice and Decide
HR conducts a role-play but does not coach Alex toward only one acceptable outcome. Possible outcomes include:
- A direct conversation with Dana
- An HR-supported conversation
- Written communication
- Manager coaching
- Documentation without immediate intervention
- A formal complaint
- A workplace adjustment
- No direct contact until further review
Practice structure
- Alex gives the opening statement.
- HR role-plays a defensive response.
- Alex uses a FOUL Buster.
- Alex listens for new Facts, Feelings, and Beliefs.
- Alex uses Rephrase for Yes.
- Alex makes a specific Remedy request.
- HR and Alex evaluate whether the Conditions remain workable.
HR coaching boundary
HR should not say:
“You need to talk this out with your manager first.”
A safer approach is:
“A direct conversation is one option. Let’s consider whether it is safe, voluntary, and likely to be useful.”
Curriculum Two: HR-Facilitated PeaceDNA Conversation
Purpose
This curriculum prepares HR professionals to facilitate an informal conversation between employees.
HR’s role is to:
- Protect workable Conditions
- Clarify each Conflict Position
- Interrupt FOULs
- Prevent beliefs from being presented as proven Facts
- Help the participants construct a realistic Remedy
HR is not neutral about safety, policy, discrimination, retaliation, or other prohibited conduct. HR can facilitate the conversation fairly without pretending that every claim or action has equal weight.
Recommended Format
One three-hour workshop followed by a supervised practice session.
Scenario: The Project Breakdown
Priya manages a product launch. Marcus supplies financial data needed for the launch presentation.
Priya tells HR:
“Marcus ignored the deadline and made my team look incompetent.”
Marcus tells HR:
“Priya kept changing the assignment and then blamed me for her poor planning.”
Both agree to an HR-facilitated conversation.
Phase One: Pre-Conversation Assessment
HR speaks with each participant separately. HR checks
- Is participation voluntary?
- Is either person afraid of retaliation?
- Is there a reporting relationship?
- Does the complaint suggest discrimination or harassment?
- Is there threatening or intimidating conduct?
- Is an investigation already underway?
- Could the conversation interfere with evidence gathering?
- Does either participant want a support person or representative?
- What information may be documented or shared?
- What authority does each person have to make an agreement?
If the matter requires formal review, HR does not use facilitation to replace that process.
Phase Two: Establish Conditions
HR begins:
“My role is to help clarify the immediate workplace Conflict and explore possible next steps. I have not made a decision about fault. This conversation is not a substitute for any review the organization may be required to conduct.”
HR requests spoken agreement to the Conditions:
“Are you both willing to speak without insults, threats, interruptions, or personal attacks?”
“Are you willing to allow the other person to describe their experience, even when you disagree with it?”
“Are you willing to distinguish what you observed from what you believe it meant?”
HR also explains:
- Either person may request a pause.
- Agreement is not required.
- Understanding does not mean accepting blame.
- HR may stop the process.
- Organizational policies still apply.
- HR cannot promise complete confidentiality.
Phase Three: Hear Priya’s Conflict Position
HR asks:
“Priya, what happened from your point of view?”
Priya explains that the financial analysis was due Tuesday but arrived Wednesday. She felt anxious and embarrassed because the client presentation was placed at risk.
HR uses a Rephrase for Yes question:
“You expected the analysis Tuesday morning. When it arrived Wednesday, you felt anxious because you believed the delay endangered the client presentation and reflected poorly on your team. Is that accurate?”
Priya says yes.
Notice what HR did not say:
“Marcus’s delay endangered the client relationship.”
That conclusion may still require evidence.
Phase Four: Hear Marcus’s Conflict Position
Marcus says Priya added three requests after the assignment began. He felt pressured and believed he would be blamed no matter what he delivered.
HR rephrases:
“You understood the scope to have changed three times. You felt pressured because you believed the original deadline no longer allowed enough time to complete the work accurately. Is that what you mean?”
Marcus corrects HR:
“The time was tight, but the bigger Problem was that nobody confirmed which version was final.”
The correction improves the shared understanding.
Phase Five: Handle a FOUL
Priya interrupts:
“That is what Marcus always does—he makes excuses.”
HR pauses the conversation:
“We agreed to avoid personal judgments. Are you willing to return to that Condition?”
If Priya agrees, HR uses a FOUL Buster:
“Is the underlying Problem that Marcus did not notify you soon enough that the requested changes might affect the deadline?”
Priya says yes.
Later, Marcus says:
“Priya doesn’t respect anyone else’s time.”
HR separates belief from fact:
“You believe the changes showed a lack of respect for your time. What happened that led you to that belief?”
The belief is heard without being certified as fact.
Phase Six: Develop the Remedy
HR first asks about wants:
“Priya, what do you want now that would help prevent this Problem?”
“Marcus, what do you want?”
Priya wants early notice of schedule risk. Marcus wants changes documented and prioritized.
HR then asks about action:
“What will each of you do?”
Their agreement states:
- Priya will document new requirements in the project system.
- Marcus will acknowledge changes and identify schedule effects within four working hours.
- Neither will assume that a changed assignment automatically creates a changed deadline.
- Deadline changes will be confirmed in writing.
- The employees will review the process after the next project cycle.
- Unresolved priority conflicts will go to the department directors.
HR’s final Rephrase for Yes
“You both want accurate work delivered on a dependable schedule. Priya will document and prioritize changes. Marcus will identify schedule effects within four hours. If you cannot agree on priorities, you will elevate the decision. Is this the agreement you are both making?”
Each person answers separately.
Phase Seven: Document and Follow Up
HR records:
- Who participated
- The purpose of the conversation
- Any required policy information
- The agreed actions
- Owners and deadlines
- Follow-up dates
- Matters remaining unresolved
The record should not present disputed beliefs as established Facts.
For example, HR should not write:
“Priya repeatedly disrespected Marcus’s time.”
A more accurate record is:
“Marcus stated that he believed the assignment changes showed insufficient respect for his workload. Priya did not agree with that interpretation.”
Curriculum Three: HR Skills Lab
Purpose
This paired-practice curriculum helps HR professionals use PeaceDNA accurately under pressure. Participants rotate through three roles:
- HR facilitator
- Employee A
- Employee B
Each exercise uses a fictional workplace case. Participants should not be asked to disclose active complaints or personally sensitive experiences.
Recommended Format
Four 40-minute sessions.
Lab One: Triage the Case
Scenario cards
Each group receives one case:
- Two employees disagree over project ownership.
- A manager criticizes an employee during meetings.
- Coworkers accuse each other of withholding information.
- An employee reports threatening messages.
- A worker believes assignments are being distributed unfairly.
- An employee alleges discrimination after being denied a promotion.
Assignment
The HR participant decides whether the case appears suitable for:
- Individual coaching
- Informal facilitation
- Management intervention
- Formal HR review
- Legal or compliance consultation
- Immediate safety action
Key lesson
Not every Conflict belongs in mediation. The ability to decline or stop informal dialogue is an essential PeaceDNA skill.
Lab Two: Kanji Listening and Rephrase for Yes
Employee A speaks for two minutes. The HR listener may not interrupt except to clarify an essential point. The listener silently asks:
“Can I understand this person’s Conflict Position before deciding what I think about it?”
The HR participant then offers a Rephrase for Yes question.
Evaluation checklist
Did HR:
- Preserve the employee’s meaning?
- Separate Facts, Feelings, and Beliefs?
- Avoid inserting a motive?
- Avoid agreeing with an unproven conclusion?
- Use neutral language?
- Allow correction?
- Avoid promising a particular outcome?
Weak rephrase
“So your manager discriminated against you and gave the promotion to a favorite?”
This turns an allegation into a conclusion.
Stronger rephrase
“You were not selected for the promotion, and the position went to someone you believe had less experience. You feel discouraged and suspect that favoritism or discrimination may have influenced the decision. Is that an accurate summary of your concern?”
The stronger version takes the concern seriously without deciding it prematurely.
Lab Three: FOUL Buster Under Pressure
Participants respond to statements such as:
- “HR never protects employees.”
- “You already decided I’m the problem.”
- “My manager is a bully.”
- “She lies about everything.”
- “Everyone knows he is incompetent.”
- “If HR cared, you would fire her.”
- “This mediation is just the company covering itself.”
Possible responses include:
“What has happened that led you to believe HR has already decided the outcome?”
“Which actions are you describing when you use the word ‘bully’?”
“What information do you believe has been false?”
“What would a fair process look like to you?”
“Are you asking HR to investigate the conduct, facilitate a conversation, or both?”
The facilitator must avoid using questions as disguised accusations.
For example:
“Don’t you think you are being unreasonable?”
This is not a FOUL Buster. It is a judgment wearing a question mark.
Lab Four: Build a Durable Remedy
Scenario
Marketing and Sales each believe the other department is responsible for inaccurate customer promises. The HR facilitator must help the participants develop an agreement containing:
- A specific action
- An identified owner
- A deadline
- A method of verification
- An escalation path
- A follow-up date
Weak Remedy
“Communicate better and respect each other.”
Stronger Remedy
“Sales will enter all nonstandard customer promises in the shared approval system before sending the proposal. Marketing will respond within one business day. Unresolved requests will be referred to both department directors. HR will check the process after 30 days.”
The stronger Remedy does not depend on good intentions alone.
HR Facilitator Evaluation Guide
A skilled HR professional should be able to:
| Competency | Evidence |
| Assess Conditions | Checks safety, willingness, power, policy, and reporting duties. |
| Clarify the HR role | Explains confidentiality limits and the difference between facilitation and investigation. |
| Identify Conflict Positions | Separates Facts, Feelings, and Beliefs without dismissing any category. |
| Use Kanji Listening | Listens before evaluating and allows the participant to complete the account. |
| Rephrase accurately | Invites confirmation or correction without inserting conclusions. |
| Manage FOULs | Stops personal attacks and redirects attention to the underlying Problem. |
| Protect voluntariness | Does not pressure employees to forgive, reconcile, or meet privately. |
| Build a Remedy | Produces specific, observable, authorized, and reviewable actions. |
| Document carefully | Distinguishes allegations, disputed beliefs, findings, and agreements. |
| Recognize limits | Stops the process when formal action or specialist support is needed. |
Red-Team Review
1. Employee Advocate Perspective
Employees may assume HR represents them personally. In most organizations, HR serves the organization while also being responsible for fair employment practices. If this relationship is left unclear, PeaceDNA could create a false sense of confidentiality or personal representation.
Improvement: HR should plainly explain its role, confidentiality limits, documentation practices, and possible next steps before requesting sensitive information.
2. Employment-Law and Compliance Perspective
An informal conversation could contaminate an investigation, discourage reporting, hide a pattern of misconduct, or create evidence that is poorly documented. A mediator’s apparent neutrality must not override the organization’s legal duties.
Improvement: Add a formal triage checkpoint before every facilitated conversation. Claims involving protected-class discrimination, harassment, retaliation, violence, wage issues, safety violations, fraud, or other regulated conduct should be routed appropriately.
3. Organizational-Learning Perspective
Many conflicts blamed on “communication” are actually caused by unclear authority, conflicting incentives, excessive workload, poor systems, or badly designed jobs. Asking two employees to communicate better may leave the true organizational cause untouched.
Improvement: HR should ask:
“What workplace system allowed or encouraged this Conflict?”
The Remedy may need to change roles, deadlines, reporting lines, staffing, decision rights, or performance expectations—not merely employee behavior.
4. Skeptic’s Perspective
PeaceDNA language could become scripted, overly polite, or manipulative. A manager might use Rephrase for Yes to create the appearance of agreement. HR might use mediation to secure cooperation without addressing unfair conduct.
Improvement: Teach that “Yes” confirms the accuracy of a rephrase only. It does not establish that an allegation is true, waive a complaint, admit responsibility, approve a Remedy, or prove free consent. HR should document each kind of agreement separately.
The central HR safeguard is this: PeaceDNA may support a fair process, but it must never be used to manufacture the appearance of fairness.