Everyone in an organization works with other people, which makes this training relevant well beyond a single team or department. Training programs can be delivered for a single team, a cross-functional cohort, or the whole organization across multiple sessions.

Yes. Each session is designed to work on its own, so you can start with one, two, or any combination, and add more when you're ready.

Sessions run with up to 20 participants, to allow room for meaningful practice and debriefing. For organizations wanting to train larger groups, the group would be divided accordingly.

Pricing is scoped per project. Reach out for a quote specific to your organization.

In-person, on-site at your organization.

All levels — workshops are built for staff across an organization, from entry-level to senior, along with new team leads and community members navigating conflict outside a single workplace.

Session length varies by program and by what works for your organization — we'll settle on that together during the scoping conversation. Most sessions run two to four hours — enough time to practice and debrief.

Yes, and often that's the more powerful approach. Training works best when it's connected to a broader culture or OD effort. I'm happy to design a more integrated engagement.

Several weeks at minimum, though complex multi-session programs benefit from more lead time to allow for proper scoping and organizational preparation. Reach out and we'll figure out what's realistic.

Each workshop is tailored to the organization and people in it. While the general structure remains the same, the facilitation, the exercises, and conversations will look different each time.

Clients determine the next steps. If you’d like to bring me in for a follow-up session or conversation, or would like me to conduct a post-training assessment, I’m happy to discuss these options at any point.

No. Both are popular in corporate training, but the evidence doesn't hold up. Learning styles and personality typing have been debunked by years of research, and the deeper problem is what they get wrong about how people actually learn. Both treat learning as passive, something that happens to a person as long as it's delivered in the right modality or matched to the right type, rather than active, something a learner builds through their own engagement and practice. Decades of studies, including reviews of more than 70 personality and learning-style frameworks, have found no evidence that matching instruction to a stated style or type improves outcomes. My training runs the opposite way: scenarios, structured feedback, and guided practice that empower participants to exercise critical thinking and actually do the work, not just receive it in their preferred format. That's what makes the change durable once the training ends.

No, not as stand-alone sessions. My approach is intersectional — race, gender, equity, and inclusion are built into everything I do, not treated as a separate module or a compliance box to check. If a stand-alone training is specifically what you're looking for, I'm not the right fit.

Race, gender, class, and other parts of identity shape how someone experiences conflict, authority, and feedback long before a training ever starts. Treating that as a separate module implies it's optional context, when it's actually the water everyone's already swimming in. Building it into the design from the start means the training reflects what's actually happening in the room.

Conflict isn't neutral ground. Everyone who walks into a hard conversation brings their own history with conflict, their position in the room, and the power and culture around them — whether they're aware of it or not. Real competence starts with naming that, not skipping past it.

That's why this workshop opens with self-awareness — how you show up shapes what happens next. It moves into power and culture, because the room itself carries weight before anyone says a word. And it builds toward feedback, accountability, and agreements, because those only hold up once the first two are in place.

I don't build my trainings around "intelligence" as a measure of anything — emotional or otherwise. Intelligence framing sorts people into a hierarchy that rewards some people and penalizes others. It sets up a binary between those who are considered “smart” and everyone else. That’s not just inaccurate, it’s actively unhelpful when the goal is building skills people can practice and grow. 

Conflict competence is relational – it plays out between people, shaped by who’s present, what power is at play, and what’s actually at stake. Treating conflict as solely an individual problem strips out the thing that makes it real — relationships. Self-awareness, empathy, and accountability are built the way any relational skill is built – through real guided practice with other people.

Additionally, emotional intelligence leans on one narrow, culturally specific way of expressing and reading emotion. People who process or communicate differently — including many neurodivergent and disabled people — get read as lacking a skill they actually have. That's not a competency gap. That's a mismatch between how someone shows up and what a test expects to see.

Most negotiation training treats agreement-building as a technical exercise — name the interests, generate options, point to objective criteria. What that leaves out is power: whoever has less of it in the room often doesn't get to name their real interest in the first place, and "objective criteria" can just encode the same inequity being negotiated around. This workshop treats power and repair as part of the work from the start, not an afterthought.

Most commercial assessments sort people into fixed types or scores, which tells you less about your organization than it feels like it does. I build assessments around your actual context, so what comes back is specific to your people and your culture, not a generic profile that happens to fit everyone.