When Conflict Is a Pattern, Not a Moment: Finding Solutions in Workplace Relationship Conflict
More and more, we’re being called into cases involving personality clashes, annoyances, or simply not liking another person or the way they’re working. Rather than focusing on a particular incident, we’re being asked to help shift a harmful dynamic. While these are not new issues, it’s not always been common to engage a facilitator for help in these situations. But we think it’s a great fit for a restorative process.
Often, this harmful dynamic feels insurmountable to those involved, and the organisation feels its hands are tied with its internal response pathways. Because we’re not working with a one-off incident, individual private sessions become especially important. It can take time to unpack and untangle what’s going on within the harmful dynamic. These give people a chance to reflect, feel heard, and sometimes even begin to shift the dynamic before a joint meeting takes place. Often, just feeling heard is a relief. Other times, people start to recognise their own part in the conflict and become more open to hearing the other person’s perspective.
Regardless of the type of harm we’re working with, as facilitators we always assess suitability criteria (that parties participate voluntarily, that the parties can identify and take responsibility for the impact of their actions, and that no further harm is caused through the process itself). Cases that fit these criteria from the outset are much more likely to result in a successful outcome, and we will not proceed if one of these criteria is not present or falls over along the way.
In relational workplace situations, it’s essential that each person can name what needs to change – both what they need from the other and what they’re willing to do differently themselves. In order for a dynamic to shift, there needs to be commitment to a different future. Contrary to some other restorative applications, it’s not enough to understand the impact – we need to identify what actions will shift the dynamic.
A recent case illustrates this approach: An HR advisor contacted us because an employee was raising complaints about their manager but didn’t want to pursue a formal disciplinary process, despite calling them ‘incompetent’ and alleging bullying behaviour. The manager, meanwhile, saw the employee as disengaged and difficult to work with. They were both skeptical of a restorative approach but were willing to try it if it meant getting rid of the problem.
The employee initially just wanted to tell the manager what to do differently. But through individual sessions, they began to see ways they contributed to the situation, unpacked why they were feeling aggrieved, and became more open to hear the other’s perspective with genuine curiosity. The manager, meanwhile, had an entirely different perspective on the events but was motivated to participate in order to work together more effectively, and to finally hear what the other person had to say.
When we met in a facilitated session (after thorough preparation), it became clear to the parties how different their personalities and working styles were. This was obvious from the outside, but they had to go through this process to see it clearly themselves. While they were able to name the ways they had been harmed, they spent much of the time identifying a plan for working together that considered their opposite styles and approaches, which they were able to see in a new light based on what they just heard the other person share. They had never taken the time to sit in such an intentional way, and for two people that were so different and who would never choose to just ‘have a chat’, they needed someone else to help support them through this type of process so that they could move from frustration to a practical way forward.
While a workplace restorative process such as this may not have the dramatic ‘aha’ moment that we sometimes hear about in a process involving major harm, it can still offer clarity, relief, and a real transformation. In incident-based conflict, resolution can come as a single moment of insight. But in cases involving a dynamic, instead of an incident, the healing is gradual. It’s less a revelation and more a new habit to practice and implement. In this case, the two colleagues may never be close, but they left feeling heard, lighter and clearer on their path forward; we were able to stop their destructive pattern rather than allow it to continue to fester – and for them (and the organisation), that’s a real success.