Learn Hardcore Swedish: Han vill veta hur hon brukar hantera konflikter på jobbet. - He wants to know how she usually handles conflicts at work.

In Swedish, vill is a modal verb (like can, must, want to in English).
After a modal verb, the next verb is always in the infinitive form, not the present tense.

Han vill veta. = He wants to know.
- vill = wants (present tense)
- veta = to know (infinitive)

Compare:

Han vet. = He knows. (only one verb → use vet, the present form)
Han vill veta. = He wants to know. (two verbs → vill
- veta)

So you never say ✗ han vill vet. It must be han vill veta.

Why is it hur hon brukar hantera and not hur brukar hon hantera?

Hur brukar hon hantera konflikter? is a direct question.
Swedish direct questions have inversion: the verb comes before the subject (brukar hon).

But in the original sentence, this part is not a direct question; it is a subordinate clause (indirect question) introduced by hur after vill veta:

Han vill veta hur hon brukar hantera konflikter på jobbet.
= He wants to know how she usually handles conflicts at work.

In subordinate clauses, Swedish does not use inversion. The word order is:

[hur] + [subject] + [verb] + …
→ hur hon brukar hantera …

So:

Direct question: Hur brukar hon hantera konflikter?
Indirect question: Han vill veta hur hon brukar hantera konflikter.

What exactly does brukar mean, and how is it different from just using hanterar?

Brukar means usually / tends to / is in the habit of.
It describes something that normally or habitually happens.

hon hanterar konflikter = she handles conflicts (simple statement, no info about how often)
hon brukar hantera konflikter = she usually handles conflicts / she tends to handle conflicts

In the sentence:

hur hon brukar hantera konflikter
→ how she usually handles conflicts, what her typical way is.

If you remove brukar:

Han vill veta hur hon hanterar konflikter.
This is also correct, but more neutral: how she handles conflicts (no emphasis on habit or typical pattern).

Brukar is used with an infinitive:

Jag brukar dricka kaffe på morgonen. = I usually drink coffee in the morning.
Vi brukar åka till Spanien på sommaren. = We usually go to Spain in the summer.

Why is there no att after brukar? Can you say brukar att hantera?

After brukar, you use the infinitive without att.

Correct:

hon brukar hantera konflikter
Jag brukar läsa på kvällen.

Using att here sounds wrong or at best very unnatural:

✗ hon brukar att hantera konflikter – avoid this
✗ Jag brukar att läsa på kvällen – avoid this

General pattern:

Some verbs take infinitive + att:
- Jag försöker att förstå. (I try to understand.)
- Hon hoppas att komma i tid. (She hopes to arrive on time.)
Modal-like verbs (and brukar) take infinitive without att:
- kan, vill, ska, måste, brukar
- Jag kan simma.
- Han vill veta.
- Hon ska resa.
- De måste gå.
- Vi brukar äta ute.

What is the difference between hur and vad here? Why is it hur hon brukar hantera and not vad hon brukar hantera?

Hur means how (the manner or way something is done).
Vad means what (the thing, object, or content).

In this sentence, the focus is on the way she handles conflicts:

hur hon brukar hantera konflikter
→ how she usually handles conflicts (her methods, approach, style)

If you said vad hon brukar hantera konflikter, it would be ungrammatical; vad does not fit that structure.

Examples:

Hur lagar du ris? = How do you cook rice? (method)
Vad lagar du? = What are you cooking? (the thing)

So you need hur here because you are asking about how she does something.

What does hantera mean here? Is it like “deal with,” “manage,” or “treat”?

Hantera generally means handle, deal with, or manage something.

In the context of konflikter på jobbet, hantera refers to:

how she deals with conflicts
how she manages conflicts
how she handles conflicts

Some rough comparisons:

hantera ett problem = handle/deal with a problem
hantera en kris = manage a crisis
hantera pengar = handle/manage money

It is not the same as:

behandla – more like treat (a person, a patient, a subject)
ta hand om – take care of (someone/something)

So hantera konflikter is a natural translation of handle/deal with conflicts.

Why is it konflikter and not konflikterna?

Konflikter is the indefinite plural: conflicts (in general).
Konflikterna is the definite plural: the conflicts (specific ones).

In this sentence, we are talking about conflicts in general, not some particular known conflicts:

hur hon brukar hantera konflikter på jobbet
→ how she usually handles conflicts at work (any conflicts that arise there)

If you said:

hur hon brukar hantera konflikterna på jobbet
→ how she usually handles the conflicts at work

…that would suggest that both speaker and listener know which specific conflicts we are talking about (for example, a particular ongoing situation). That is a different nuance.

What exactly does på jobbet mean? Why på and not i?

På jobbet is an idiomatic way to say at work / at the workplace.

jobbet = the job / the workplace (definite form of jobb)
på = on / at (used in many fixed expressions for locations and activities)

So:

på jobbet ≈ at work (where she works, in her work environment)

Why på and not i?

In Swedish, på is often used with places where activities happen:

på jobbet = at work
på skolan (colloquial) = at school
på kontoret = at the office
på bio = at the cinema
på restaurang = at a restaurant

I jobbet exists but means something slightly different: more like in (the course of) one’s work / as part of the job.

Jag träffar många människor i jobbet.
= I meet many people in my job / as part of my work.

In your sentence, på jobbet (at work) is the natural choice.

Could I say på arbetet instead of på jobbet? Is there a difference?

Yes, you can say på arbetet, and it is grammatically correct.
The difference is mainly style and register:

på jobbet – more informal / everyday
på arbetet – more formal or neutral

Examples:

Spoken, casual:
- Hur brukar hon hantera konflikter på jobbet?
Slightly more formal, written:
- Hur brukar hon hantera konflikter på arbetet?

Both are understood as at work. In most everyday conversation, på jobbet is more common.

What is the nuance of han vill veta? Is it like “he wants to know” or “he would like to know”?

Han vill veta literally matches he wants to know.

It is a straightforward, neutral expression of desire: he wants this information.

If you want a more polite / softer tone (like English "would like to know"), Swedish often uses:

Han skulle vilja veta hur hon brukar hantera konflikter på jobbet.
= He would like to know how she usually handles conflicts at work.

So:

Han vill veta …
→ neutral, direct: he wants to know.
Han skulle vilja veta …
→ more tentative / polite: he would like to know.

How do han and hon work as pronouns here? Is there a gender-neutral option?

In Swedish:

han = he
hon = she

In your sentence:

Han vill veta = He wants to know
hur hon brukar hantera konflikter = how she usually handles conflicts

Swedish also has a common gender‑neutral pronoun:

hen = they (singular), gender‑neutral

You could theoretically say:

Hen vill veta hur hen brukar hantera konflikter på jobbet.

In practice:

han / hon are still the standard gendered pronouns.
hen is widely recognized and increasingly used, especially when gender is unknown, irrelevant, or non‑binary.

Why is everything in the present tense (vill, brukar, hantera) even though it’s about general habits?

Swedish uses the present tense not only for things happening right now, but also for:

general facts
habits
repeated actions

So:

Han vill veta … = He wants to know … (now)
hur hon brukar hantera konflikter …
→ how she usually (habitually) handles conflicts

The habit is expressed mainly by brukar, not by a special tense.
This is similar to English:

She usually handles conflicts calmly. (simple present for a habit)

So the present tense here is exactly what you want to describe her typical behavior.