Peter Williams

This article was first published in the February 2015 UK edition of Accounting and Business magazine.

Workplace grievances can soon turn nasty. Rows at work are horrid, whatever side of the argument you are on. No one can have been part of the world of work without falling out with someone over something. But if the row doesn’t get fixed quickly then too often any chances of a relatively pain-free resolution are overwhelmed by a seemingly inevitable escalation. The result can be a toxic work environment. 

And we’re so bad at handling work rows. I remain astonished by one public sector-employed friend who some years ago was left languishing for months, suspended from work, while some pretty minor row between him and the boss over expenses payments wound slowly through labyrinthine procedures. 

In the end it became a farcical, unsatisfactory time-waster for all concerned, with no sense of justice done or resolution reached (and you can count the taxpayer in that ‘all concerned’). 

A mediation process with a dose of common sense would have been a so much better option. But no: research by Professor Stephen Wood of Leicester University, released at the end of 2014, shows that most employers now adopt formal procedures. Wood also showed that while mediation is seen as the best way to handle disputes - and is becoming a feature of the workplace in Britain - it is not as effective as it could be because it is not being used at an early enough stage to prevent escalation to formal procedures or litigation. 

Disciplinary and grievance procedures have been promoted by governments over years as a way of underpinning good employment practices, as they are seen as providing an opportunity for fair and consistent treatment in the workplace.

Instead of being a real option, mediation has too often seemed a grudging reaction by employers to their bad experience of disputes with employees. 

However this may be changing. Following government moves to discourage employees going to tribunals by, among other changes, making them pay, mediation may become a more attractive option for all. At the same time HR professionals think that employers should view mediation as ‘a breath of fresh air’ and a vehicle for encouraging more ‘adult to adult’ conversation in the workplace.

Mediation should not be seen as a soft touch where we all pretend to like one another. Mediation conversations should be business like and business-orientated and should place emphasis on measuring cost, return on investment and benchmarking against best practice. In large organisations the best mediation schemes should involve multiple stakeholders - senior management, employees, trades unions and relevant experts such as occupational health professionals - though how that could be replicated in a small employer is not clear.

"Better than dealing with grievances as soon as possible is not to have them at all."

Better than dealing with grievances as soon as possible is not to have them at all. As long ago as 2011, HR body the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development was talking of ‘conflict coaching’ where managers are given specific help. They may have a history of above average grievances or simply be known as not being brilliant with people.

Practical help can be given in terms of advice on how to have difficult conversations or offering a helpline for when problems emerge. Such help should be easy, quick and cheap to access. No point booking onto a mediation course in two months’ time if a situation is exploding around you now. 

Companies should also be able to learn from their mediation process in a way that is more difficult to achieve in a legal setting. A company may see a certain type of dispute arising time and again, which should prompt a look at root causes. And they can apply lessons from good resolutions. That way both employee and employer should feel they have some control. At its best mediation could be the focus for putting people and humanity back into the centre of solving workplace disputes.