We Don’t Have a Workplace Conflict Problem. We Have a Conflict Capability Problem.
We spend a lot of time teaching managers how to manage performance.
We teach them how to set objectives, conduct appraisals, manage absence, give feedback and hold people accountable.
But what happens when two people in their team simply cannot work together?
What happens when someone’s behaviour is becoming unacceptable?
What happens when a disagreement becomes a pattern?
What happens when a manager knows there is tension within their team, but doesn't know whether they should intervene, how they should intervene, or what they are actually allowed to do?
And perhaps most importantly:
What happens when we expect managers to deal with workplace conflict, but haven't actually equipped them to do it?
This is something I think organisations need to think much more seriously about.
Conflict isn't just an HR issue
The Health and Safety Executive's Management Standards identify Relationships as one of the six key areas that organisations should consider when managing work-related stress.
The guidance isn't simply about encouraging people to "get along".
It recognises the importance of promoting positive working relationships, preventing unacceptable behaviour and having systems that enable managers to deal with problems effectively.
That matters because workplace conflict isn't just uncomfortable.
Poor relationships can contribute to stress, anxiety, sickness absence, disengagement, poor performance and people ultimately deciding that the organisation isn't somewhere they want to work.
And yet conflict is often treated as something that belongs in the HR department.
Something to be escalated when it becomes serious.
Something that starts with an informal conversation and ends with a grievance, investigation or disciplinary process.
But by the time it reaches that stage, the conflict may have been going on for months.
People have taken sides.
Trust has deteriorated.
Communication has broken down.
Other members of the team have been affected.
And the emotional cost can be considerable.
Perhaps the question we should be asking is:
Could we have intervened earlier?
The scale of the problem
Research from the CIPD suggests that workplace conflict is far from unusual.
Its research found that around one in four UK employees had experienced workplace conflict in the previous year, equivalent to millions of people.
More concerningly, of those who experienced conflict, only 36% felt that it had been fully resolved.
There is another statistic that really caught my attention.
The CIPD found that 81% of employers believed they were doing enough to prevent and manage bullying and harassment.
Yet only 36% of employees who had experienced workplace conflict felt that their conflict had been fully resolved.
That raises an uncomfortable question:
If organisations think they are doing enough, but the majority of people experiencing conflict don't feel that it has been properly resolved, are we measuring organisational effectiveness from the wrong perspective?
And there is another layer to this.
The CIPD found that almost half of employers acknowledged that managers can actually be a source of conflict within their teams.
So managers aren't simply the people expected to solve conflict.
Sometimes, they are part of the problem.
That makes management capability even more important.
We expect managers to have difficult conversations. Do we teach them how?
One of the biggest mistakes I see organisations make is assuming that because someone has become a manager, they automatically know how to manage people.
They don't.
Management is a skill.
And managing conflict is a skill within management.
A manager may be excellent at operational delivery but have very little experience of dealing with interpersonal conflict.
They may avoid difficult conversations because they are worried about making things worse.
They may be concerned about saying the wrong thing.
They may not know whether something constitutes unacceptable behaviour.
They may worry about being accused of taking sides.
Or they may simply hope that the problem will resolve itself.
Usually, it doesn't.
In fact, avoidance can give conflict room to grow.
A minor disagreement can become resentment.
Resentment can become a breakdown in communication.
That breakdown can become a formal complaint.
And suddenly an issue that might once have been resolved through a well-handled conversation requires HR involvement, investigation and potentially months of organisational time.
This is why I believe conflict management should be considered a core leadership capability, rather than a specialist HR skill.
Does every manager need to be a mediator?
No.
But I do think every manager should have some mediation-informed skills.
There is an important distinction.
Formal mediation is a specialist intervention. It requires the right level of training, independence and impartiality, and it isn't appropriate for every situation.
For example, serious allegations of harassment, discrimination or other misconduct may require a very different approach.
But managers can absolutely be taught the skills that sit around early conflict resolution.
They can learn how to:
recognise conflict before it escalates
distinguish disagreement from unacceptable behaviour
listen without immediately taking sides
explore what is actually happening
challenge inappropriate behaviour
facilitate constructive conversations
manage emotionally charged discussions
clarify expectations
agree practical next steps
recognise when they should seek support
understand when informal resolution is inappropriate
know when an issue needs to move into a formal process
These aren't specialist skills that only HR professionals need.
They're management skills.
And if we're serious about creating psychologically healthy workplaces, perhaps they should be taught alongside performance management, absence management and effective feedback.
What about behavioural standards?
Many organisations have them.
"We treat each other with respect."
"We communicate openly."
"We value inclusion."
"We challenge inappropriate behaviour."
"We listen to each other."
All good things.
But a behavioural framework isn't the same thing as a behavioural culture.
A document telling people how they should behave doesn't automatically give them the confidence to challenge behaviour when it isn't happening.
And it certainly doesn't tell a manager what to do when someone repeatedly breaches those standards.
That's where I think behavioural standards can fall down.
What happens when someone doesn't meet the standard?
Who challenges it?
What happens when the person behaving poorly is a senior leader?
What happens when the manager doesn't feel confident addressing it?
What happens when two people have completely different interpretations of what "respectful communication" actually means?
And what happens when someone raises a concern and nothing changes?
A behavioural framework without accountability can become little more than an organisational poster.
The words might be right.
The reality can be very different.
Some organisations are doing this differently
There are examples of organisations recognising that early intervention, behavioural expectations and conflict resolution need to work together.
The NHS has developed significant work around Civility and Respect, recognising the impact that incivility, bullying and poor relationships can have on staff wellbeing and patient care.
There are also some particularly interesting case studies.
At Kettering General Hospital, an approach called "Compassionism" was developed following concerns about respect and relationships.
Rather than relying solely on formal processes, the organisation developed "peer messengers" who could help staff raise concerns and address issues at an earlier stage.
The reported result was striking: almost 1,000 issues were raised and 85% were resolved satisfactorily at an early stage.
That doesn't mean informal resolution is always the answer.
It demonstrates something more interesting:
Creating mechanisms for people to address problems early can prevent some issues from becoming entrenched.
East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust is another useful example.
An Acas case study describes an organisation with an entrenched pattern of "claim and counter-claim", where workplace relationships had become damaged and conflict was increasingly moving towards formal processes.
The Trust moved towards a more multifaceted approach to early conflict resolution, including mediation.
And Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust has taken a different but related approach through its work around a just and learning culture, including a focus on early investigation and informal resolution.
The common thread isn't that these organisations found a magic solution to workplace conflict.
It's that they recognised something important:
Conflict needs more than a policy.
It needs capability.
It needs support.
And it needs routes for people to raise and resolve concerns.
The danger of making everything a formal process
There is, understandably, a desire within organisations to have clear procedures.
Policies matter.
Processes matter.
Employment law matters.
And there are situations where formal processes are absolutely necessary.
But if our only organisational response to conflict is:
"Speak to HR."
we have potentially missed a huge opportunity for earlier intervention.
There is a point at which conflict becomes a formal employee-relations matter.
But there is also a period before that.
A period when a manager notices that two colleagues aren't speaking.
When someone repeatedly interrupts another person in meetings.
When a team member starts withdrawing.
When comments are becoming increasingly personal.
When a disagreement about work becomes a disagreement about character.
When people start talking about each other rather than to each other.
That is the point at which management capability matters.
Because once conflict becomes deeply entrenched, resolution becomes considerably harder.
So what should organisations actually provide?
I think there are three things organisations should consider.
1. Clear behavioural expectations
People need to understand what good behaviour looks like.
Not simply:
"Be respectful."
But what does respectful behaviour actually mean in meetings, emails, decision-making, disagreement and challenge?
Behavioural standards should be observable and meaningful.
And people should understand what happens when those standards aren't met.
2. Conflict-capable managers
Managers need practical training in dealing with conflict.
Not a two-hour presentation about "having difficult conversations".
Real skills.
How to prepare.
How to listen.
How to challenge.
How to manage emotion.
How to remain impartial.
How to recognise unacceptable behaviour.
How to facilitate resolution.
And perhaps most importantly, when not to handle something alone.
3. Organisational support
Managers cannot be expected to resolve every conflict themselves.
They need clear policies, accessible HR advice, mediation where appropriate, escalation routes and support when the situation becomes more complex.
The manager should know:
"I am responsible for addressing this, but I don't have to do it alone."
That is very different from simply telling managers:
"It's your team. Sort it out."
Perhaps we need to stop asking, "Who is responsible for this?"
And start asking:
"What capability does our organisation need to manage this well?"
Because the traditional model can become surprisingly binary.
Is this a management issue?
Or an HR issue?
Is this informal?
Or formal?
Is this performance?
Or conduct?
Is this a wellbeing problem?
Or an employee-relations problem?
Real life isn't that neat.
A breakdown in a relationship can affect someone's wellbeing.
Poor management can create conflict.
Conflict can create stress.
Stress can affect performance.
Performance concerns can then create further conflict.
The issues overlap.
That's why I think workplace conflict deserves a much broader organisational response.
Conflict capability is part of wellbeing
We talk a lot about psychological safety.
We talk about wellbeing strategies.
We talk about preventing burnout.
We talk about inclusion.
But none of these things exist in isolation from the quality of people's everyday relationships at work.
You cannot create a psychologically healthy workplace while ignoring persistent interpersonal conflict.
You cannot tell people that their wellbeing matters while allowing unacceptable behaviour to continue unchecked.
And you cannot give managers responsibility for the wellbeing of their teams without giving them the skills to manage the relationships within those teams.
The HSE has already recognised the connection.
The research is telling us that conflict remains widespread and frequently unresolved.
There are organisations demonstrating that earlier intervention and mediation-informed approaches can make a difference.
So perhaps the question for organisations isn't:
"Do we have a conflict policy?"
Perhaps it should be:
"How capable are we of preventing, recognising and resolving conflict?"
Because having a policy tells us what we intend to do.
Capability tells us what we are actually able to do.
And there is a world of difference between the two.
The Hornbeam Perspective
I don't believe every workplace conflict can, or should be resolved informally.
Sometimes formal processes are necessary.
Sometimes relationships cannot be repaired.
Sometimes behaviour crosses a line that requires investigation and action.
But I do think we should question why we so often wait until conflict has become sufficiently serious to enter a formal process before we equip people to deal with it.
If relationships are one of the HSE's key areas of work-related stress risk, then conflict capability is part of workplace wellbeing.
If managers are responsible for the day-to-day experience of their teams, then conflict management is part of leadership.
And if an organisation has behavioural standards, then it needs to create the capability and accountability to make those standards real.
Because workplace culture isn't created by what we say we value.
It's created by what happens when things get difficult.
And perhaps that is the real test of an organisation's culture:
Not whether conflict happens, but what happens next.