Multidisciplinary engineering teams are nothing new; they’ve long existed, especially in sectors like aerospace, defence, and complex manufacturing, where systems integration has always been key. What has changed, however, is how widespread and essential this model has become across a much broader range of industries and projects.
While there are a number of factors at play, the complexity of today’s challenges is one of the main drivers here. An average engineering project now requires integrated thinking from software, mechanical, systems, and even cybersecurity specialists. No single discipline can deliver end-to-end solutions alone. Add to this the pressure to move faster - from prototype to production - and the move to globally distributed, often hybrid, teams, and it’s clear why multidisciplinary collaboration is now not just common, it’s essential for competitive advantage.
However, as collaboration becomes more distributed and time-pressured, so too does the potential for conflict. With years of experience leading large teams, functions, and divisions, I’ve seen firsthand how easily friction can develop when teams bring with them different ways of thinking, operating, and problem solving.
Take a systems engineer and a software developer, for example. They’ll typically approach the same challenge from fundamentally different angles, with their priorities, assumptions, and language often diverging significantly.
This diversity is a strength, but without intentional alignment, it can also lead to breakdowns in communication, misinterpreted intentions, and ultimately, conflict. Unlike single-discipline teams, there is no immediate shared baseline of “how we work,” which increases the risk of misalignment.
Top most common sources of conflict and the early warning signs
In the engineering sector, the most common triggers for problems tend to fall into one of the following categories:
● Technical disagreements: These often arise where design philosophies or views on performance trade-offs differ between disciplines.
● Incompatible ways of working: Here we might see one team follow agile methodologies, while another expects a more traditional, sequential workflow.
● Breakdowns in communication: When communication isn’t seamless or when access to key stakeholders is uneven, frustration can build.
● Cultural differences: Both disciplinary and regional cultural differences can lead to misunderstandings that, if unaddressed, may quickly escalate into deep disputes.
But being aware of these potential conflict areas and actually spotting an issue before it escalates are two very different things. So how can project leaders recognise the early warning signs?
One of the first indicators is silence. When engineers stop raising concerns or challenging ideas, it’s rarely a sign that everything’s going smoothly - it’s more often a signal of disengagement. Repeated misunderstandings between team members, especially around deliverables or expectations, may point to deeper breakdowns in communication or trust.
Language also matters. If you start hearing “us versus them” phrasing, it’s a subtle cue that collaboration is giving way to division. And perhaps the most telling sign of all is when individuals begin working around one another instead of with one another. Avoidance is often the last stage before conflict becomes entrenched and harder to resolve.
That’s why early detection matters. Because when conflict goes unaddressed, it rarely resolves itself and the consequences can be serious. In engineering projects, unresolved conflict often manifests as delays, scope creep, or costly rework, particularly when misalignment only surfaces in the later stages of delivery. Beyond the technical and financial risks, there’s also a serious human cost.
Conflict that festers drives disengagement, demoralises high-performers, and increases turnover. It also stifles innovation. When people no longer feel safe to challenge assumptions or suggest bold ideas, teams lose their creative edge. At a broader level, unresolved tension diminishes stakeholder trust and can jeopardise future collaboration.
Practical conflict resolution strategies
To avoid those consequences, leaders need to act early and they need to act intentionally. That means moving beyond reactive problem-solving and looking instead to proactive conflict management, starting long before tensions flare:
● Establish a shared language. One of the most powerful strategies is establishing a shared language across disciplines, whether this is via tools, templates, or rituals.
● Create clear decision-making protocols. Defined protocols, outlining who leads, who decides, and how input is handled, remove ambiguity and reduce the risk of frustration.
● Invest in psychological safety. Constructive technical debate is the heartbeat of innovation. The issue isn’t whether debate should happen, but how it’s framed and facilitated.
● Take onboarding beyond the technical. New team members should be introduced not only to the systems and tools, but also to the team’s communication norms, expectations, and ways of working.
While these strategies will certainly help ease any unwanted relationship strain, ultimately, the most powerful piece of advice I can offer any engineering leader is this: Conflict doesn’t mean you’re doing a bad job as a leader. It’s often part and parcel of operating in complex environments with smart people who have ideas and opinions. That can be a real asset, but only if it’s managed.
The very best teams will be built to be resilient to conflict - the good conflict, and the sometimes unavoidable more negative face of conflict.
Fayola-Maria Jack is founder of Resolutiion, a software platform designed to help companies prevent, manage, and resolve commercial conflicts and disputes.
Comment: The UK is closer to deindustrialisation than reindustrialisation
No. 20% is added to the bill (not deducted) as output tax that is recovered by a VAT registered customer as input tax, until a customer down the...