Management, oversight, and leadership in general all have to do with roles. John, upset with Rajiv for not following through on a task, might say "What kind of an engineer are you?!" meaning that the role "engineer" requires a certain series of behaviors which are not being performed. Rajiv's problem is that he is not only an engineer, but is also a management trainee. He may be a father, brother, best friend, and caregiver for his elderly mentor as well, but most workplaces aren't designed to account for these variables, so we will stick with the roles understood today as being obviously work-related.
What John seldom knows, or is unwilling to acknowledge because it weakens his barely submerged rhetorical position (you should have done this thing that I need), is that the tension between roles is not only natural, it is essential to keep the roles psychologically alive and the human to whom it applies engaged. If Rajiv knows this, he usually doesn't know how to bring it in to an argument successfully because he doesn't know how to use the word Archetypal or see how universal themes and roles are in play in human interaction.
Rajiv may well resort to the leverage of rank: "I am a management trainee and you are not. The time previously promised to the thing you need was redeployed to training by our supervisor," which is a valid response in most work environments. Chances are good that John knew this. They both may also work in a situation wherein their supervisor expects everyone to figure out how to clear their To Do List, even given insufficient time. John may resort to "What kind of an engineer are you?!" to push Rajiv using identification with his role as a professional. Both know that there are hidden subtexts at play and that employees are seldom encouraged to actually bring these out and account for them in their planning and negotiation.
There are hundreds of possible permutations to this exchange. I'd like to draw your attention to one in particular, because it imagines the exchange as an opportunity for training, as though conflicts like this were a doorway to a systemic martial art, called Martial Nonviolence, based on aikido and many years of training and practice in the Process Arts. If Rajiv has practiced receiving any and all differences as a chance to refine his conflict skills and relational capacity, then he might not be alarmed by his or John's fear related to the potential consequences of the exchange. He might then consider his options briefly before responding by being receptive to John's attack without being overwhelmed and pushed into fighting (pushing back) or collapsing (giving in).
Rajiv might say something like "It sounds to me like you may have found a place where my role as a trainee is in conflict with my role as your colleague working on this project. Am I close to what you mean?" Rajiv has now turned John from his pointed attack and is standing beside him rhetorically, looking in the same direction. They are now facing the complex situation and thorny problem together. John can continue to turn and attack, but Rajiv need not join in the exchange of blows, as long as he allows just enough distance from John and from his fears, so that he can effect the situation directly but not be so close that he becomes overwhelmed.
The challenge, in a world that desperately needs to learn "conflict done well" is to see the process of working through differences, from its ancient, universal (archetypal) roots to its real-world applications, as normal learning with clearly established and accepted agreements. Conflict doesn't have to be a zero-sum, free-for-all, where strength and deceit prevail. There are real challenges like that in the world, but the vast majority of the tense exchanges in daily life are perfect training opportunities, available for free, with people who are more than ready to work through differences without causing harm. Purposeful practice is the doorway to becoming both martially ready and committed to nonviolent response. That is Martial Nonviolence and "conflict done well".
