Workplace conflict takes up far too much time, energy and trust.
Employees spend nearly 2.8 hours per week dealing with workplace conflict, amounting to 385 million working days lost annually. The CIPD reports only around one-third of employees feel the conflict they experienced at work has been fully resolved.
Yet, in many organisations, the first instinct is still to reach for grievance or disciplinary processes.
In my experience as an employee relations professional, that instinct often does more harm than good.
I have seen what happens when managers do not ask the right questions early enough. They avoid the conversation, miss the chance to listen properly and move too quickly into process mode.
By the time Employee Relations (ER) gets involved, people are entrenched, trust has dropped away and the original issue is often buried under paperwork, assumptions and defensive positions.
What if managers reached for a coaching conversation instead?
I believe coaching skills are one of the most overlooked tools a leader can have when handling conflict.
I’m not talking about coaching as a soft option or an alternative to management. I mean practical skills that help leaders slow things down, listen properly, ask better questions and create space for reflection before an issue hardens into a formal dispute.
Delegates on our accredited coaching programme often tell us that gaining the confidence and competence to handle difficult conversations leads to earlier intervention, better questions and fewer issues escalating into a formal process.
Why do managers default to process?
My experience suggests that managers often default to formal processes because it feels clear, structured and controlled. It can feel safer than sitting down with someone who is upset, frustrated or angry and trying to work out what is really going on.
But safer does not always mean better.
Acas research on information resolution shows that dealing with conflict positively and early can improve relationships and reduce escalation. The report also highlights the importance of active listening, empathy, emotional self-awareness and asking effective questions.
Those are coaching skills. In my view, they are often the difference between a concern being resolved and a concern becoming a case.
Working in ER, I have seen how quickly a manageable issue can escalate when leaders bypass the human conversation and move straight to formal process.
In my experience, this often happens because they feel uncomfortable with conflict or believe decisive action means acting fast. But conflict rarely responds well to haste.
More often, it needs a more deliberate response from the start. A willingness to speak, listen and pause long enough to understand what is really going on.
When leaders do that well, they often uncover the real issue before it becomes something much bigger.
Managers often default to formal processes because it feels clear, structured and controlled
An important shift: Reactivity to curiosity
The biggest shift coaching creates is this, it helps leaders stay curious instead of becoming reactive.
Rather than asking: “Who is right?”, they ask: “What is actually happening here?”.
Rather than moving straight to judgement, they ask: “What have you noticed? What impact is this having? What needs to change?”.
Rather than trying to shut the issue down quickly, they create enough space for clarity to emerge.
That matters because many workplace conflicts are not really about the issue that first lands on the table.
A complaint may be about tone, an email or being left out of a meeting. But underneath that may sit frustration, fear, unclear roles, clashing expectations or a damaged working relationship.
If a manager does not know how to explore that properly, they risk treating the symptom and missing the cause.
How coaching helps
First, it lowers the temperature. When people feel threatened, they become defensive. Positions harden and language sharpens.
A coaching approach helps leaders slow the exchange down and reduce the emotional heat. That does not mean avoiding challenge. It means creating the conditions for challenge to be heard.
Second, it builds responsibility. Formal routes can encourage people to hand the problem over and wait for someone else to solve it. Coaching does the opposite. It helps people think more clearly about their role, their choices and the conversation that now needs to happen.
Third, it protects working relationships. Even where a matter cannot be resolved informally, the first conversation still matters.
If people feel heard, respected and treated fairly, they are far more likely to stay engaged. If they feel dismissed or judged, it becomes much harder to rebuild trust later.
This is not about avoiding accountability, there will always be cases where formal process is necessary. Serious misconduct, discrimination, harassment, safeguarding concerns or repeated harmful behaviour may require a formal response. Coaching is not a substitute for accountability. But not every workplace issue should begin there.
Too often, we use formal processes where a skilled conversation should have come first. We confuse structure with resolution. We rely on process when what is actually needed is confidence, curiosity and better leadership.
Too often, we use formal processes where a skilled conversation should have come first
What leaders should do next
Leaders must teach managers how to ask better questions before they take positions. Teach them how to listen without rushing in to fix, defend or judge. Teach them how to raise concerns calmly, explore impact and create space for reflection.
Just as importantly is helping them recognise when a conflict is still at the stage where a coaching conversation can make the difference.
Because once people dig in, sides are formed and everything becomes evidence, it is much harder to get back to what should have happened at the start: a quality conversation.
The most effective leaders are not the ones who escalate fastest. They are the ones who stay steady, ask the right questions and create the conditions for resolution before conflict becomes entrenched.
Because most workplace conflict does not need more confrontation. It needs better conversation.
