While far too common, workplace conflict is one of those topics that feels explosive and dramatic. If unaddressed by leaders, it lurks, creating stress and discord that boils under the surface. The impacts to the organization are real—and significant.

I recently led a workplace mediation training session for leaders in collaboration with my colleague, Theresa Phillips. Drawing from Theresa’s deep expertise in conflict resolution and mediation, the training presented conflict resolution strategies for public sector leaders based on essential mediation principles.

I’d like to share a few lessons from that training that can help leaders be prepared and respond to workplace conflict.

The Cost of Conflict

A 2023 article in Psychology Today described a survey of 3,400 workers with some troubling findings about workplace stress:

• Work stress can negatively impact employees’ home life (71 percent), well-being (64 percent), and relationships (62 percent);
• Managers impact employees’ mental health (69 percent) more than doctors (51 percent) or therapists (41 percent)—and even the same as a spouse or partner (69 percent).
• At the end of work, 43 percent of employees are “often” or “always” exhausted, and 78 percent of employees say that stress negatively impacts their work performance.

Left unaddressed, workplace conflict can contribute to employee absenteeism, turnover, grievances, complaints, and even litigation. The impacts of conflict can spread across the team and sometimes the entire organization. That’s why leaders have to be aware of – and be trained to address – emerging conflict before it gets out of hand.

Conflict Is Easier to Address Early On

Workplace conflict rarely improves when left alone. The longer a dispute continues, the more likely people are to form assumptions, take sides, nurse grievances, and become entrenched in their positions. Resentment and distrust formed over time are very difficult to repair.

Mediation methods work best when people are still willing to engage in productive conversation. Addressing concerns early usually creates more options and better outcomes.

While it’s important to be timely, it’s also important to be informed. Before deciding how to address a conflict, take the time to understand what is happening, how long it has been happening, who has been affected, and what factors may be contributing to the problem.

This context is critical when considering your response – especially if the conduct in question violates your agency’s policies or rises to the level of a misconduct investigation.

Not Every Conflict Requires the Same Response

Not every workplace conflict should be treated the same way and not every complaint should result in an investigation.

Some situations involve policy violations, harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or other serious misconduct. Those situations require formal processes and, often, investigations. In these situations, it’s critical to follow your organization’s policies regarding misconduct.

Other conflict situations are rooted in misunderstandings, communication breakdowns, personality differences, competing priorities, or strained working relationships. While these issues can still have serious consequences if left unchecked, they may benefit from coaching, facilitated conversations, team interventions, or mediation-style approaches. In these circumstances, jumping straight to a worst-case-scenario, like a formal investigation, is likely to deepen the conflict and prevent any possible reconciliation.

Create Space for Both Parties to Communicate

When there’s conflict, a leader can start a mediation process by communicating expectations about respectful communication—often formalized with written ground rules which participants can review together. These often describe how participants are expected to listen, including avoiding personal attacks or refraining from interrupting one another, and they help everyone stay focused on the issues being discussed.

During the mediation process, before solutions are discussed, participants are given an opportunity to explain their experiences, concerns, frustrations, and goals. The process requires active listening and an open mind, with both parties seeking to gain more understanding. Often, at this early stage, a rigid participant begins to see their counterpart as a real person who may not be as “evil” as they originally thought.

While it may feel challenging or counterproductive to air grievances in a mediated conversation, it’s an important part of the process. Those conversations allow participants to express emotions, feel heard, and begin thinking about the future rather than remaining focused solely on past grievances. Sometimes, the question, “where do you think this situation will end up if you continue having this dispute?”, can lead to realization that the conflict-laden path has mainly downsides for both disputants.

Look for the Issue Behind the Issue

People often argue about one thing when the real concern is something else entirely. For example, a disagreement about schedules may actually be about fairness. Many workplace conflicts get trapped in what Theresa calls the “blame frame”, where participants are stuck on past events and repeatedly assign blame and defend their actions long after the fact. Leaders should encourage participants to move beyond positions and identify underlying interests and concerns. That way, all parties can have a voice in creating a workable future.

The Goal Is a Better Working Relationship

The most successful workplace resolutions are the ones that restore enough trust, communication, and understanding for people to work together effectively moving forward. Doing the work to reach an agreement and document the outcomes can build a foundation for future conflict avoidance.

Here’s a couple of recent examples of simple written agreements between two disputants:

• We agree to go for coffee (together in same car), out of the office, once per week to discuss our work with each other (there was a history of mistrust, internalizing tension, communicating only by email, and not constructively handling day-to-day issues).
• We agree to learn more about each other’s job by setting aside one hour each week each to work side-by-side in each other’s workspace (simple lack of understanding, coupled with workplace structure issues, and a “my role is more important” perspective, caused these disputants to misunderstand one another).

Public agencies depend on people working together over long periods of time, and conflict is a normal part of organizational life; in other words, disagreement is inevitable. But by listening carefully, gathering information, creating structure, and helping people focus on solutions, teams can work through conflict to improve communication and build healthier workplaces.

And in many cases, those efforts can make a meaningful difference long before a conflict reaches a crisis point.

Special thanks to Theresa Phillips, whose experience in employee relations, workplace investigations, and mediation helped shape this article.