How to Resolve Difficult Conflicts in Soccer Coaching Using the Interest-Based Relational Approach (IBR)

The Interest-Based Relational Approach (IBR)

Not every conflict can be handled in the moment. Some disagreements are resolved with a clear word from the coach, a brief conversation at the end of training, or a firm but fair decision that both parties accept and move on from. But some conflicts are more stubborn than that. A player who feels genuinely overlooked and has stopped engaging. Two players whose falling-out has begun to fracture the group around them. A parent whose concern has not been addressed by a general response and who has come back a second and third time with the same issue. These situations require something more structured than a quick response. They require a process.

The Interest-Based Relational Approach, commonly referred to as IBR, provides exactly that. It is a conflict resolution framework built around a central insight that applies as much on a soccer pitch as it does in a boardroom or a courtroom: what people say they want in a conflict is rarely the whole story. Underneath every stated position is a set of underlying interests, needs, and concerns that are driving the dispute. Resolve the stated position and the underlying interests remain unaddressed, which is why so many apparently resolved conflicts resurface weeks later in a different form. Address the underlying interests and the resolution tends to hold.

IBR gives coaches a structured way to surface those interests, to work through them with everyone involved, and to reach outcomes that both parties can genuinely commit to rather than simply tolerate.

History and Origins

The intellectual foundation of the Interest-Based Relational Approach lies in the work of Roger Fisher and William Ury at the Harvard Negotiation Project, a research program established at Harvard Law School in 1979 with the goal of improving the theory and practice of negotiation and conflict resolution. Fisher and Ury's 1981 book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In became one of the most widely read books on negotiation ever published and introduced the concept of principled negotiation to a global audience.

The central argument of Getting to Yes was that most negotiation and conflict resolution fails because it operates at the level of positions rather than interests. A position is what a person says they want. An interest is why they want it. Two siblings arguing over an orange is the classic illustration Fisher and Ury used: one wants the orange, the other wants the orange, and the obvious solution seems to be to cut it in half. But if you ask why each person wants the orange, you discover that one wants to eat the fruit and the other wants to use the peel for baking. The position is identical. The interests are completely different, and the solution that addresses both interests is far better than the compromise that addresses neither properly.

Fisher and Ury identified four principles for resolving conflicts at the level of interests rather than positions: separate the people from the problem, focus on interests rather than positions, generate options for mutual gain before settling on a solution, and use objective criteria to evaluate options rather than relying on power or pressure. These four principles became the foundation of what practitioners and researchers later developed into the Interest-Based Relational Approach.

The IBR framework extended Fisher and Ury's principled negotiation model by placing an explicit emphasis on the relationship between the parties as an outcome to be protected and strengthened throughout the conflict resolution process, not just a backdrop to the negotiation. This emphasis on relationships made IBR particularly relevant in settings where the parties involved would continue to work together after the conflict was resolved, settings including workplaces, schools, families, and sports teams.

The framework was further developed through the 1990s and 2000s by practitioners in organizational development, education, and community mediation, and was adopted as a core component of training programs in human resources, school counselling, and leadership development worldwide. Its combination of principled structure and relational sensitivity made it one of the most widely taught conflict resolution frameworks across professional education programs.

Use in Business and the Corporate World

In organizational settings, IBR became a standard tool for human resources professionals, team leaders, and organizational development practitioners because it addressed a problem that position-based conflict resolution consistently failed to solve: agreements that looked resolved on paper but fell apart in practice because the underlying concerns of one or both parties had never actually been addressed.

Mediated Workplace Conflict

The most common application of IBR in corporate settings is in mediated conflict between employees, or between employees and management, where the relationship needs to be preserved after the conflict is resolved. A positional approach to a dispute between two colleagues who disagree over the division of responsibilities on a project produces a decision about who does what. An IBR approach to the same dispute surfaces the interests underneath the positional argument, which might include concerns about credit and recognition, anxiety about workload, or a history of feeling undervalued that predates the current project. A resolution that addresses those underlying interests produces a more durable outcome and a stronger working relationship.

Organizations including large professional services firms and public sector bodies adopted IBR training for their HR teams and line managers specifically because the framework reduced the rate of conflict recurrence. When the underlying interests were genuinely addressed, the same issue was less likely to resurface in a different form three months later. When only the surface position was resolved, recurrence was common.

Negotiation Between Teams and Departments

The second major application of IBR in business is in negotiations between departments, divisions, or organizations that have an ongoing relationship to protect. A procurement team negotiating with a supplier, two departments competing for budget allocation, or a management team working through a structural reorganization with employee representatives, all benefit from an IBR approach because the relationship will continue long after the specific negotiation is concluded.

In these contexts, IBR is taught not as a technique for winning negotiations but as a process for reaching agreements that both parties can commit to fully rather than accepting under pressure. An agreement reached through IBR tends to be more durable, more creative, and less likely to generate resentment than one reached through positional bargaining, because it reflects a genuine understanding of what each party actually needs rather than what they were willing to accept.

IBR and the TKI: Two Frameworks, Two Moments

Before exploring how IBR applies in soccer coaching, it is worth placing it in context alongside the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, which we have covered separately in this blog. The two frameworks address different moments in the conflict process and are most powerful when understood as complementary.

The TKI helps a coach decide how to respond to a conflict situation: whether to compete, collaborate, compromise, avoid, or accommodate, based on the specific circumstances. It is a decision-making tool for the coach in the moment of conflict.

IBR is what comes next. Once a coach has decided that a situation warrants a structured, collaborative resolution process, and not all conflicts do, IBR provides the framework for how to run that process. It is the structured conversation that follows the decision to engage.

Before you can apply a structured resolution process effectively, it helps to understand your own instincts in conflict situations. The Thomas-Kilmann framework gives you an honest picture of how you naturally respond and what to watch out for.

A coach who has used the TKI to determine that collaboration is the right mode for a particular dispute, perhaps a player whose concern has not been resolved by simpler exchanges, or two players whose falling-out has begun to affect the group, can then use IBR to structure the conversation that actually works through the conflict and produces a durable resolution.

Practical Application: IBR in Soccer Coaching

IBR is most valuable in soccer coaching for conflicts that have already passed the point of simple resolution. These are the situations where a brief conversation has not been sufficient, where the same issue has resurfaced more than once, or where the conflict involves more than two parties and requires a facilitated process to work through. They are also the situations that tend to do the most damage to team cohesion when they are mishandled.

The framework operates through four sequential steps that the coach facilitates, either between two players, between a player and the coach, or between the coach and a parent.

Step One: Separate the People from the Problem

The first step in any IBR conversation is to establish that the conflict is a shared problem to be solved together, not a contest between opposing sides. This distinction is harder to establish than it sounds, particularly with teenagers whose sense of identity is closely tied to being right, or with parents who have arrived at a conversation already feeling defensive or dismissed.

In practice, this means the coach opens the conversation by framing it explicitly as a joint problem-solving exercise. Not "I want to hear both sides" which implies a judgment to follow, but "there is a situation here that is not working for either of you and I want us to work through it together and find something that does." That framing positions the conflict as external to both parties rather than located in one of them.

It also requires the coach to manage the emotional temperature of the opening. A player or parent who arrives in a heightened state needs to feel that their emotion has been acknowledged before any problem-solving is possible. Acknowledging an emotion is not agreeing with the position attached to it. It is recognizing that the feeling is real and that the person is being heard. That acknowledgment, done genuinely and briefly, is often enough to lower the temperature to a point where a structured conversation becomes possible.

Step Two: Surface the Interests Underneath the Positions

This is the step that distinguishes IBR from every simpler form of conflict resolution, and it is the step that requires the most skill and patience to execute well.

A player who says they want more playing time has stated a position. The interest underneath that position might be a need for recognition, a fear that they are falling behind their peers, a desire to contribute to the team's success, or anxiety about what their parents expect from them. Each of those interests points toward a different kind of resolution. A coach who responds only to the position, by either defending the current playing time decision or adjusting it, has not addressed what is actually driving the player's distress.

Surfacing interests requires open questions and genuine listening. "What matters most to you about playing more?" is a better question than "why do you think you deserve more time?" The first opens the conversation. The second puts the player on trial. Following the player's answer with further questions, staying curious rather than moving quickly to a response, is how the real interest eventually surfaces.

The IBR process only works if you can genuinely hear what the other person is telling you, not just the position they are defending. Active listening is the skill that makes that possible in a high-pressure conversation.

The same principle applies in parent conversations. A parent who says the coach is not giving their child enough individual attention has stated a position. Their underlying interest might be concern that their child's confidence is dropping, worry that a less experienced player is being developed ahead of their child, or anxiety about a transition to a more competitive age group that is coming at the end of the season. Each of those interests points toward a different conversation and a different resolution.

Step Three: Generate Options Before Settling on a Solution

Once the interests of both parties have been surfaced and understood, the IBR process opens the solution space before narrowing it. This is the step most people skip in conflict resolution, moving directly from understanding the problem to agreeing on the first solution that occurs to them. IBR insists on generating multiple options before evaluating any of them, because the first solution that occurs to both parties is usually a compromise that partially addresses both interests rather than a creative solution that addresses them more fully.

In a coaching context, this might involve asking both parties to suggest possible ways forward before the coach adds their own ideas. A player and coach working through a playing time concern might generate several options: a development-focused plan with specific targets that would influence the coach's selection decisions, a structured conversation at the midpoint of the season to review progress, a different positional role that would give the player more consistent minutes, or a combination of all three. Generating those options collaboratively before evaluating them produces better solutions and increases the commitment of both parties to the outcome, because both have been involved in creating it.

Step Four: Evaluate Options Against Shared Criteria

The final step is to evaluate the options generated in step three against criteria that both parties agree are fair. The objectivity that IBR demands is most critical at this point. If the coach simply decides which option to implement, the process reverts to a positional resolution with a more elaborate setup. If both parties agree on the criteria by which the options will be evaluated, the chosen solution carries a legitimacy that a unilateral decision cannot.

In a soccer coaching context, the shared criteria might include what is best for the player's long-term development, what is fair relative to the rest of the squad, what is realistic given the coach's tactical needs, and what the player can actively contribute to rather than simply receive. Evaluating the generated options against those criteria produces a solution that both parties can genuinely commit to, because both have agreed that the criteria are fair and both can see how the chosen option meets them.

Real-Life Scenarios

Two Players Whose Conflict Has Fractured the Group

Two players in an under fourteen squad had a falling-out over a match incident three weeks ago. Neither has raised it directly with the coach, but the tension between them has become visible in training and other players have started to align with one or the other. The coach decides the situation requires a structured conversation rather than a general team address.

The IBR process begins with a separate conversation with each player individually, surfacing their interests before bringing them together. One player feels publicly embarrassed by how the other responded to their mistake during the match. Their interest is in having their dignity restored and the incident acknowledged. The other player feels unfairly blamed for something they see as a team problem. Their interest is in being heard rather than scapegoated. Once the coach understands both sets of interests, the joint conversation can be structured around those specific concerns rather than the surface dispute about what happened in the match. The resolution that emerges addresses both players' interests and gives them a shared understanding of how to move forward, which is something a simple instruction to get along could not have produced.

A Parent Who Keeps Coming Back

A parent has raised concerns about their child's development three times across the season. Each time, the coach has given a general reassurance about the player's progress. Each time, the parent has returned within a few weeks with the same concern in a slightly different form. The coach recognises that the position being stated, my child is not developing fast enough, is not the real issue.

Using IBR, the coach schedules a dedicated conversation rather than another touchline exchange. Through open questions, the underlying interest emerges: the parent is worried that their child is losing confidence and is beginning to dread training rather than looking forward to it. That is a fundamentally different concern to the developmental one the coach has been addressing, and it points toward a completely different conversation about how training is experienced by this specific player. The resolution involves specific changes to how the coach interacts with the player during sessions, a follow-up conversation in four weeks, and a shared understanding between coach and parent of what they are both trying to achieve for the child. The parent does not return with the same concern again.

Benefits for Coaches

Resolutions That Actually Hold

The most significant benefit of IBR over simpler conflict resolution approaches is that the resolutions it produces tend to be durable. When the underlying interests of both parties have been genuinely addressed, the motivation to resurface the conflict disappears. A player or parent who has felt truly heard and whose real concern has been met does not come back with the same issue in a different form.

Stronger Relationships After Conflict

IBR is specifically designed to protect and strengthen the relationship between the parties as an outcome of the process. A conflict resolved through IBR leaves both parties with a better understanding of each other's concerns and a shared experience of having worked through something difficult together. That shared experience tends to build trust rather than erode it, which is the opposite of what most conflict resolution produces.

A Process the Coach Can Trust

One of the most draining aspects of managing difficult conflicts is the uncertainty of not knowing how to proceed. IBR gives coaches a clear, sequential process they can follow even when the conflict is emotionally charged or the stakes feel high. That structure reduces the cognitive load of the situation and allows the coach to stay present and effective rather than improvising under pressure.

Overcoming Challenges

When One Party Is Not Willing to Engage

IBR requires both parties to be willing to participate in the process. A parent who arrives determined to win the argument rather than resolve the conflict, or a player who refuses to engage with questions about their underlying interests, cannot be forced through the framework. In these cases, the coach can still apply the IBR principles unilaterally, listening carefully, acknowledging emotions, and looking for the interests underneath the stated position, even if the other party is not doing the same. That approach rarely produces a complete IBR resolution, but it tends to de-escalate the situation and often opens the door to a more structured conversation at a later point.

Understanding why a conflict escalated in the first place is as important as resolving it. Transactional Analysis gives you a framework for reading the communication patterns that tend to drive these situations.

The Time It Requires

IBR is not a quick process. A properly structured IBR conversation takes time, and for a volunteer coach managing a full squad, finding that time is genuinely difficult. The practical response is to reserve IBR for the conflicts that genuinely require it, those that have persisted beyond a simple response, that involve multiple parties, or that are beginning to affect the wider group. Most conflicts do not need IBR. The ones that do are usually the ones where the investment of time is most clearly justified by the cost of leaving the conflict unresolved.

Understanding Before Resolution

Johan Cruyff built his coaching philosophy on a belief that was as much about human relationships as it was about tactics: that a team of players who genuinely understood each other, who knew how each person thought and what each person needed, would always outperform a more talented group that lacked that understanding. His commitment to dialogue, to explaining his thinking rather than simply issuing instructions, and to creating an environment where players felt that their perspective mattered, reflected the same principle that IBR is built on. Resolution comes from understanding. And understanding requires a willingness to ask what is actually going on beneath the surface before deciding what to do about it.

The coaches who handle conflict best are not the ones who are quickest to resolve it. They are the ones who are most willing to slow down, listen carefully, and find out what is really being said before they respond. IBR gives that willingness a structure, and the structure makes it reliable even in situations where the emotion is high and the pressure to act quickly is real.

Resources

Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Harvard Negotiation Project, summarised by Beyond Intractability. An authoritative summary of the foundational text behind the IBR approach, hosted by the University of Colorado's conflict research programme. Covers the four core principles of principled negotiation including the central distinction between positions and interests that underpins the entire IBR framework.

Fleischer, J. et al. (2023). Web-Based, Interactive, Interest-Based Negotiation Training for Managing Conflict in Isolated Environments. JMIR Formative Research, PubMed Central (NIH). A peer-reviewed open-access study demonstrating that interest-based negotiation is a learnable skill that produces measurably better conflict outcomes than positional bargaining, and that the approach transfers effectively across high-pressure, relationship-dependent environments.

Wachsmuth, S., Jowett, S. & Harwood, C.G. (2017). Conflict Among Athletes and Their Coaches: What Is the Theory and Research So Far? International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Semantic Scholar. A comprehensive review from Loughborough University of 80 research papers on interpersonal conflict in sport, establishing the evidence base for why coach-athlete conflict matters and what determines whether it produces functional or damaging outcomes.

Wachsmuth, S., Jowett, S. & Harwood, C.G. (2018). Managing Conflict in Coach-Athlete Relationships. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, Semantic Scholar. A follow-up study from the same Loughborough team examining the specific conflict management strategies coaches and athletes use, and which approaches produce functional versus dysfunctional outcomes for the relationship and performance.

Wachsmuth, S., Jowett, S. & Harwood, C.G. (2018). On Understanding the Nature of Interpersonal Conflict Between Coaches and Athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, PubMed. A peer-reviewed study in which 22 elite coaches and athletes were interviewed about their experience of conflict, revealing how conflict develops, what topics most commonly trigger it, and how it shapes both performance and the coaching relationship.

Join the Coaching Circle

Join our free email group, the Coaching Circle, and never miss out on valuable coaching tips and resources. Stay updated with the latest posts, news, and exclusive offers available only to Coaching Circle members.

© 2026. All rights reserved.

Data Breach Policy

Website Disclaimer

Terms of Service

Shipping Policy

Privacy Policy

Returns Policy

Smart Coaching Systems Pty Ltd | 81-83 Campbell St, Surry Hills NSW, 2010 | ABN: 48 670 375 443