When two subordinates have competing priorities, what approach should you take?

• A. Use a structured, neutral approach: gather facts, listen to both sides, mediate, and agree on a compromise or decision
• B. Let them decide themselves
• C. Publicly shame them
• D. Ignore it until it impacts work

Answer: (A)

When two subordinates have competing priorities, handle it with a structured, neutral process that centers on facts and fair resolution. Start by gathering all relevant information: what each priority requires, timelines, dependencies, and how each option affects the mission and team workload. Then listen to both sides actively, asking open questions to understand constraints, rationale, and potential risks. As a mediator, guide the discussion toward common goals, helping them see how their priorities intersect and where tradeoffs may be needed. Together you should reach a well-reasoned compromise or make a clear decision, and you’ll want to document the rationale and communicate it transparently, with clear expectations and accountability.

This approach is best because it preserves fairness and trust, prevents bias or favoritism, and demonstrates accountable leadership. It also reduces the chance of conflict fester or escalate, and keeps the team aligned with mission priorities rather than letting disputes stall work. Avoiding action—that is, letting them decide on their own, publicly shaming someone, or ignoring the issue until it impacts performance—undermines morale, trust, and effectiveness, and ultimately harms the team and mission.