From Conflict to Cure - My Story

From Conflict To Cure

I’d like to take you back five years ago, to a cold, clinical waiting room at the Stanford Cancer Unit.

I could feel a draft on my shoulders. I made myself smaller in my chair as I looked around at the worried faces in that room. We were all there because we had been diagnosed with cancer. We were waiting to speak with our medical teams about treatment plans.

A quiet voice in my head said, “Not all of us were going to live beyond our diagnosis.”

I was fortunate to work in biotech; honestly, it felt like such a gift. I was surrounded by incredible colleagues, the best in the world. And in my case, the best in the cancer I was facing.

And I want to tell you something surprising. It was conflict that saved my life.

The Personal Conflict That Saved Me

My ENT doctor gave me the name of a surgeon. But first, I met with one of those world-class doctors in my organization, and they looked me in the eye and said:

“You’re not going with the first surgeon. Not the first choice, not the easy decision to just cut it out. You need more voices in the treatment plan. And I’ll tell you why. Because you have a young wife and a young child. Yes, this surgeon is good. You could live. But will your quality of life be good? You deserve the best, not just survival, but a life worth living.”

He made a few calls.

In the next few days, I was introduced to my medical team for the first time: an oncologist, a world-class surgeon in robotic surgery, a radiologist, a physiotherapist, a dentist, and a nutritionist.

Everyone had an opinion and their own perspective

The surgeon wanted to operate.
The oncologist and radiologist wanted to talk about chemo and radiation.
The physiotherapist wanted me to understand how hard swallowing would be after surgery.
The dentist wanted me to think about how my mouth and jaw would function over the next five years.
The nutritionist discussed why a feeding tube was not a path to follow.

Different voices. Different priorities. Different approaches.

If none of them had talked and shared their perspective with each other, if no one had connected those perspectives to the bigger goal and then challenged each other, I might not be here.

The bigger goal wasn’t just “remove the cancer.” It was: What kind of life will you have after treatment?

That was the moment I understood something profound:

The best outcomes don’t come from the simple first choice or an easy answer.
They don’t come from avoiding tension or standing firm for your perspective.
They come from disagreement. From conflict. From repair.
And connecting every voice to the bigger purpose.

The Lesson for Biotech Teams

In biotech, we look to cure the incurable. We give people years with their families and lives that they never thought they’d have. We search for answers no one else has found. And in this world, “good enough or the easy answer” is not enough.

And when conflict is navigated well, when those voices connect back to the bigger purpose, breakthroughs happen.

Yet I’ve seen it too often:

Clinical vs. regulatory teams are stuck in an endless debate.
Scientists and executives are clashing over investor pressure.
Global teams are lost in cultural misunderstandings.

When conflict is avoided or poorly managed, progress stalls, meetings drag, ideas are silenced, trust erodes, and patients wait.

Real-world Data Shows:

Innovation is high-risk and expensive: Only 6.7% of Phase I programs succeed, with total R&D costs reaching €2.8B per novel drug (Norstella; McKinsey & Company; PMC).
Development is slowing: Average trial timelines have lengthened, with Phase II now 44 months and Phase III 41 months (McKinsey & Company).
Biotech firms with strong cross-functional alignment are 30% more likely to exceed product launch targets, while misalignment cuts scientist retention by 13.5% and patent productivity by 35% (Performance Development Group; arXiv).
Trial delays are costly: 76% of trials require amendments (costing $141K—$535K each), and delays cost sponsors $800K—$2.7M per day (Applied Clinical Trials Online).
Talent is fragile: Life sciences turnover sits at 20.6%, with replacement costs of 70–300% of annual salary for scarce specialists (Tootris; BioSpace; Wikipedia).

The Power of Generative Conflict

Conflict isn’t the enemy. Poorly managed conflict is.

Think about it. Innovation doesn’t come from everyone politely agreeing. It comes from tension. From challenges. From asking, “What if we looked at this differently?”

But here’s the forgotten element. For conflict to become generative, teams need the ability not only to challenge and listen, but they need to know how to repair

Repair means being able to disagree, reconnect, and move forward faster together.
Repair means holding relationships strong enough to withstand tension.
Repair means remembering that we’re not fighting each other but fighting for the patient.

This is the missing capacity in most teams, not how to avoid conflict, but how to harness it.

Conflict to Cure

That’s why I do this work now. My partner and I help biotech and life science teams turn conflict into creativity.

We teach human skills:

Listening even when you disagree.
Challenging ideas without making it personal.
Noticing your body’s signals when you want to shut down, walk away or please someone.
And practising repair so teams can restore trust after breakdowns.

We integrate systemic tools and teach proven practises, such as mapping where conflict lives in the team and naming hidden pressures that influence behavior, like investor demands or burnout.

We augment it with AI, including dashboards that reveal blind spots, sentiment analysis that tracks team tone, and nudges that remind leaders how to stay grounded.

We developed the Generative Conflict Framework to guide our work:

1. Reframe & Create Safety: normalize conflict as part of growth.
2. Surface the Real Dynamics: identify roles, voices, and pressure points.
3. See the Whole System: shift from personal agendas to the bigger mission.
4. Repair & Restore: rebuild trust, reconnect to purpose, and codify agreements.

It’s not about smoothing things over.

It’s about making teams stronger, faster, and more connected through conflict.

Results

And when teams do this, the results can be real.

A biotech reframed a regulatory vs. clinical deadlock around patient trust. Decision cycles reduced.
A company helped scientists and executives move beyond blame. Engagement scores rose, critical talent stayed.
A team built repair rituals across cultures. Within a short period of time, project delays shrank and trust grew.

This is the power of generative conflict.

Call to Action

I still remember sitting in that cold waiting room, making myself small, and looking around at faces full of fear and hope. I know that every day, someone else is sitting in that chair. Waiting.

Every day a biotech team spends avoiding conflict is another day a patient doesn’t have.

But when we learn to turn conflict into creativity, to repair, to reconnect, to innovate, patients don’t have to wait as long.

That’s why this work matters. That’s why I’m here.

Because conflict didn’t just change my career.
Conflict saved my life.

Action

Before I leave you, I want to give you one simple mindset shift.

Instead of thinking, “I need to end this conflict quickly,” reframe it as: “What is this tension trying to teach us about our bigger purpose?”

And here’s one action you can try as soon as your next meeting: when the tension rises, pause and ask, “What bigger goal are we all trying to serve here?”

It may feel small, but it can change the trajectory of the entire conversation. From conflict to cure.