Workplace conflict is increasing.
A report by the CIPD discovered that 25 per cent of UK employees, an estimated eight million people, have encountered workplace conflict in the last year. It seems inevitable, particularly in our increasingly polarised society.
It feels trite to say it, but workers in conflict are unlikely to be productive workers. Unresolved conflict is damaging to culture and productivity.
Escalating to formal routes may make things worse
Leaders dealing with conflict are rightfully afraid of getting it wrong; with reputational, legal, financial, operational and regulatory ramifications in their minds.
This nervousness can translate to a knee jerk reaction to move straight to inflexible, formal processes to resolve conflict, like disciplinary and grievance procedures, and formal investigations.
These may seem the safer route at face value, but they can risk making bad situations much worse.
Formal procedures rarely heal relationships. They are more likely to entrench bad feelings and lead to even greater conflict. And, counter-intuitively, an inflexible tendency to escalate to a formal route may make other employees less likely to speak up about their concerns.
Sometimes the braver, better decision is to de-escalate, swerving away from formal to informal routes. We urge leaders to pause and consider if there is a viable de-escalation route.
What does de-escalation look like?
These informal, de-escalatory routes include coaching and mentoring, training, one to one high impact conversations, and group trust rebuilding exercises.
We are particularly passionate about workplace mediations and facilitated conversations – involving a neutral third party to give employees a safe space to try to mend relationships.
Over time, conflict becomes exponentially more likely to reach the point of no return, when it can no longer be easily fixed. That point of no return may be a relationship damaged beyond repair, or an acrimonious departure from the business.
We’ve seen all these routes resolve tension before it has escalated to that point of no return, and they’re usually much less expensive than formal processes in terms of cost, management time, and productivity,
When should you de-escalate?
The escalate vs de-escalate decision isn’t an easy one; workplace conflict comes in many shades of grey.
It’s almost always about human emotion, and needs a nuanced, emotionally intelligent response. There are no hard and fast rules.
However, there are some situations which are more likely to be appropriate for informal, de-escalatory routes.
1. Firstly, conflict that stems from personality clashes. This kind of conflict is common, painful, and can suck energy from everyone directly and tangentially involved.
Personality clashes can seem insuperable. But we’ve seen time-and-time-again how facilitated conversations and workplace mediations can, at the very least, start the process of building bridges towards functioning workplace relationships.
Getting two people in a room together and helping them to listen, with the aim of hearing rather than the aim of defending, can have near miraculous results.
2. Secondly, where employees have offended others in discussions about their beliefs; political, religious, or otherwise. The potential for a misstep here is huge in our fractured society.
We don’t advocate a blanket prohibition on expressing belief in the workplace; but where beliefs are challenged by others, offence is easily given and easily taken.
We’re also hearing employees comment that they are afraid of “saying anything” in case offence is caused. This fear is real, and it can exacerbate polarisation, isolation and dysfunction. Jumping to formal processes, rather than a more nuanced approach, can be a cause of this fear.
Facilitated conversations, one to one discussions, and education about why particular words and actions can be offensive to someone (and how to react constructively to challenges), may help to de-escalate tension before it has built up to entrenched conflict.
3. Third, where concerns have been raised about bullying and harassment.
Those two words are powerful, and it's particularly difficult for leaders to move to a de-escalation route where employees have used them. However, many anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies actively encourage informal routes.
Employers should consider the substance of the complaints and talk to the employee concerned, but a workplace mediation can sometimes be used even where “bullying” and “harassment” have been mentioned.
All informal de-escalation routes work best when triggered early - when leaders are hearing whispered warnings of tension, rather than waiting for conflict to emerge.
Do it early, and keep momentum going. The longer you wait, the more likely you are to reach that point of no return.
When should you accept that de-escalation won’t be possible?
Some conflict will always call for escalation to formal routes.
For example, It’s hard to see any situation where allegations of sexual harassment should not be escalated to formal investigation. Though even here, a nuanced approach should be used; zero tolerance does not necessarily mean disciplinary processes.
Escalation should be the go-to route for situations where patterns of behaviour are emerging, where there may have been serious misconduct, and where informal routes have already failed.
And employers must, of course, always comply with their regulatory obligations.
An employee should also never be stopped from raising a grievance or a whistleblowing concern. If that is their chosen route, formal investigation should follow.
De-escalation does not equate to brushing conflict under the carpet. Conflict should be surfaced and dealt with, swiftly and proportionately. Sometimes, the decision to de-escalate can be the better, braver decision to do just that.
