Managing Workplace Conflict Directly: Is it Really Too Risky?

By Dr Mike Talbot

Workplace conflict exists in all organisations. Between colleagues, we may encounter interpersonal fallouts, perceptions of unfair treatment, allegations of bullying & harassment, or other potential grievance-type issues. And with our own reports, we may need to navigate tough conversations around performance management, discipline, restructuring, or accountability. If simply left unaddressed, any of these things could really affect both the working lives of the individuals and the efficiency of the organisation as a whole, so we need to be able to deal with them.

Of course, organisations have procedures for addressing all these matters ‘by the book’, but we also know that current best practice is to firstly try the informal approach: keeping things low level for as long as possible and avoiding escalation. If working relationships are failing, this could involve a facilitated conversation between two colleagues, or perhaps impartial mediation. If we need to address performance or disciplinary matters with an individual, this might mean having a simple ‘quiet word’ or what we would refer to as a ’Confident Conversation’.

But we don’t tend to make use of the informal and direct approach to managing conflict as often as we might. At EU Mediation and at our UK sister company, UK Mediation, referrals for dispute resolution processes often come from organisations after they have tried to address issues through a formal grievance and/or investigation. The working relationship has by then often been spoiled. More importantly, when people eventually get to the mediation table, we realise that the dispute in question could probably have been resolved much sooner and certainly much more simply.

So, are we too worried about the consequences to feel confident in addressing conflict at an early, informal stage? A recent article in the Canadian Financial Post [1] suggests that this might be the case. There is a growing trend towards cautious leadership (at least in Canadian workplaces but probably elsewhere as well), whereby managers soften their language, delay difficult conversations, involve HR earlier, and avoid direct confrontation where possible.

But what do managers fear? Principally, their concern is that they might become the subject of complaints themselves. A difficult conversation about attendance, conduct, or accountability could quickly evolve into allegations of disrespect, retaliation, or psychological harm. Or they fear they might make things worse if they try to facilitate a resolution meeting or even go so far as trying to mediate.

So, should managers just turn a blind eye and let HR sort it out by the book and on the record? Not really: managers of course need to exercise appropriate oversight of the workers who report to them, and they also need to be attentive to their reports’ working relationships: providing a level of support when two or more of them come into dispute with each other. Managers may already possess the skills to do this, and if they don’t, these skills can be taught (and we can teach you!) But what is often lacking is the confidence required to bring those skills to bear.

What managers and team leaders need more of is the courage and inclination to walk towards these situations, and to do so regularly. The key is to build a culture where psychological safety and respectful workplace principles are paramount, and where matters are addressed as and when they arise. Paradoxically, an aversion to conflict can bring about more conflict when managers and others try and formalise every potentially contentious situation: those on the receiving end themselves become more formal and litigious. What we really want in our workplaces is the opposite: a sense of collaboration, a set of values that everyone shares, and when courageous management interventions do occur, a greater sense of good faith, fairness, and consistency.

[1] https://financialpost.com/fp-work/canadian-workplaces-have-conflict-problem