What Should I Do When Two Employees Are in Conflict?
A See. Say. Solve. first-response guide for managers
When two employees are in conflict, the manager’s first response matters.
Handled early and carefully, the issue may be contained before it affects the wider team. Handled poorly, it can become a formal complaint, a psychosocial risk, a resignation risk, a performance issue, or a broader team disruption.
For managers, business owners and HR contacts, the challenge is rarely that they do not care. The challenge is knowing what to do first.
Should you speak with each employee separately?
Should you bring them into a room together?
Is this a mediation issue?
Is it a performance issue?
Is it bullying?
Does it need investigation?
Is it becoming a psychosocial risk?
The answer depends on the nature of the issue, the level of risk, the impact on the team, and whether there are specific allegations that need to be tested.
At Resolution House Consulting, we use a simple first-response framework:
See. Say. Solve.
See what is happening.
Say the right first words.
Solve by choosing the right pathway.
This framework helps managers respond calmly and proportionately before a workplace issue becomes larger, more formal, or more difficult to repair.
If two employees are already in conflict and you are unsure what to do next, book a free confidential triage call before the issue escalates.
Direct answer
When two employees are in conflict, do not force an immediate joint meeting, take sides, or label the issue too early. Speak with each person separately, clarify what has happened, assess whether there are safety concerns or specific allegations, and then choose the right pathway: internal management, facilitated conversation, workplace mediation, formal investigation, team reset work or psychosocial risk support.
The first response is not about rushing to a resolution. It is about making a careful triage decision.
Why the first response is a management decision, not just an interpersonal one
Workplace conflict is often described as a personality clash.
That phrase can be unhelpful.
It may be true that two employees have different communication styles, different expectations or a strained working relationship. But conflict at work is rarely only about personality. It can also be connected to unclear roles, workload pressure, poor communication systems, perceived unfairness, unmanaged performance issues, change fatigue, poor supervision, exclusion, incivility, or a lack of psychological safety.
That is why the first response should be structured.
A manager does not need to diagnose everything immediately. But they do need to avoid three common mistakes:
ignoring the issue because no formal complaint has been made
taking sides too early
pushing the matter into the wrong process
Workplace conflict should not automatically be treated as a mediation issue, a misconduct issue or a personality issue. The first task is to determine the type of issue and select an appropriate pathway.
The See. Say. Solve. first-response framework
Use the See. Say. Solve. Guide as a practical first-response framework.
See
What is actually happening?
Recognise early signs of conflict, team strain, repeated behaviour, safety concerns or psychosocial risk.
Say
What should I say first?
Use calm, neutral language. Do not take sides, label the issue too early, or promise a specific outcome.
Solve
What pathway is most appropriate?
Choose between internal management, facilitated conversation, mediation, investigation, team reset or psychosocial risk support.
What managers should not do first?
When two employees conflict, managers often feel pressure to act quickly. But quick action is not always good action.
Before deciding what to do next, avoid these common mistakes.
Do not force an immediate joint meeting.
A joint meeting can be useful in the right circumstances. It can also be harmful if the issue involves fear, a power imbalance, alleged bullying, intimidation, discrimination, trauma or serious mistrust.
A joint conversation should not be an ambush. It should be prepared, purposeful and appropriate to the issue.
Do not tell people to “just sort it out”
This can sound dismissive, especially if one person has already tried to raise the issue or feels unable to speak safely.
It can also send the wrong message: that workplace behaviour is a private interpersonal issue rather than a matter affecting work, safety, performance or team functioning.
Do not take sides too early.
Managers can be influenced by who speaks first, who appears calmer, who has worked in the organisation longer, or who is easier to manage.
Fairness requires a process, not an instinctive reaction.
Do not ignore the issue because there is no formal complaint
A matter does not need to become a formal complaint before a manager can act.
Early, proportionate action is often safer and more effective than waiting until the matter becomes entrenched.
Do not turn every conflict into an investigation.
Not every disagreement is misconduct.
Some matters need clearer expectations, role clarification, facilitated communication, mediation, team reset work or early advisory support.
A formal investigation is important when findings of fact are needed, but it is not the right tool for every workplace conflict.
Do not label it as a personality clash
The phrase “personality clash” can hide the real issue.
Instead, ask:
What behaviour is affecting work?
What expectation is unclear?
What risk is emerging?
What process is needed?
What does the organisation need to do next?
See: recognise what is happening early.
The first step is to see the issue clearly.
This means looking beyond the surface tension and asking what is actually happening in the workplace.
You may be seeing early signs of conflict if:
Two employees avoid speaking to each other
communication has become sharp, defensive or indirect
one person refuses to work with the other
meetings are tense or silent
team members are taking sides
Work is being delayed because people are not cooperating
complaints are being raised informally but not clearly
A manager is being pulled into repeated conversations about the same issue
clients, customers, or service delivery are being affected
other employees are starting to feel uncomfortable or unsafe
At this stage, the manager’s job is not to decide who is right. The manager’s job is to understand whether this is an early workplace tension, a behavioural concern, a formal complaint, a safety issue, or a sign of broader team strain.
Useful questions include:
What has actually happened?
When did it start?
Is this a one-off disagreement or a repeated pattern?
Has anyone made a specific allegation?
Is there a power imbalance?
Is anyone feeling unsafe or unable to work?
Is the wider team being affected?
Is the issue connected to workload, role clarity, communication, performance, fairness or change?
Has anything already been tried?
Is the manager part of the issue?
Seeing the issue early is important because unresolved workplace conflict rarely stays contained. It can affect trust, decision-making, communication, productivity and wellbeing across the team.
Say: use calm, neutral first words.
Once a manager becomes aware of the conflict, what they say first can either contain the situation or inflame it.
The safest first response is calm, neutral and procedurally fair.
A useful starting point is:
“I can see this is affecting the workplace. I am not going to make assumptions or rush the process. I will speak with each person separately first, understand the issue, and then decide the most appropriate next step.”
This response does three important things.
It acknowledges the issue
It avoids taking sides.
It makes clear there will be a process.
That matters because employees often test the manager’s response very early. They may want the manager to agree with them, act immediately, discipline the other person, arrange a meeting, or promise confidentiality before the manager understands the issue.
Managers should avoid saying:
“That sounds like bullying.”
“I know what they are like.”
“You are right.”
“They have always been difficult.”
“Let’s just get you both in a room.”
“You need to sort this out yourselves.”
“I do not want to get involved.”
“This is just a personality clash.”
These comments may be well-intentioned, but they pose a risk. They can suggest bias, minimise the concern, mislabel the issue, or push people into an unsafe or unsuitable process.
Instead, use language such as:
“I need to understand what has happened before deciding the next step.”
“I will speak with each person separately.”
“I cannot promise a particular outcome, but I can make sure the matter is handled properly.”
“The focus is on what is affecting work and what needs to happen next.”
“If there are specific allegations, they need to be handled through an appropriate process.”
The aim is not to sound scripted. The aim is to bring steadiness, fairness and structure to a situation that may already feel emotionally charged.
Speak with each person separately before bringing them together
Before arranging any joint conversation, speak with each person separately.
This is not always a formal investigation. In many cases, it is an initial conversation to clarify the issue.
The purpose is to understand:
what each person says has happened
what impact the issue is having on work
whether there are any immediate safety concerns
whether there are any specific allegations
whether the matter appears suitable for a facilitated conversation, mediation, management action, investigation, or another pathway
Ask practical, open questions:
What has been happening from your perspective?
When did this start?
What specific behaviours or incidents are you concerned about?
How is this affecting your work?
Have you raised this before?
What have you already tried?
What do you need to work professionally and safely while this is being addressed?
Are there any immediate concerns I need to know about?
Listen carefully, but do not reach conclusions too early.
Document the key points factually. Record dates, behaviours, impact and agreed next steps. Avoid emotional labels or premature findings.
For example, write:
“Employee A reported that Employee B interrupted them during the team meeting on 3 June and later sent a message they experienced as dismissive. Employee A says this has affected their willingness to raise issues in meetings.”
Do not write:
“Employee B bullied Employee A and is creating a toxic workplace.”
The first version records the concern. The second concludes before the issue has been properly assessed.
Solve: choose the right pathway.
Once the issue is clearer, the manager needs to choose the right pathway.
This is where many workplace matters go wrong.
Some organisations avoid conflict for too long. Others over-formalise issues that could have been resolved earlier. Some push people into mediation when the issue is not suitable for mediation. Others start an investigation when the real problem is unclear roles, poor communication, workload pressure, poor support, or team dysfunction.
The goal is to choose a response that is proportionate to the issue.
Decision pathway: What kind of response is needed?
The following pathway is presented in a mobile-friendly format on the website. Each item can be set up as a separate block or accordion on the page.
1. Early tension, unclear communication or minor misunderstanding
Best-fit pathway: internal management response
The issue may be resolved through clear expectations, role clarity, respectful communication standards and follow-up.
2. Strained working relationship or communication breakdown
Best-fit pathway: facilitated workplace conversation
This may be appropriate where there are no serious allegations requiring findings, but the employees need a structured conversation to clarify impact, expectations and workable future behaviour.
3. Established conflict, loss of trust and ongoing communication difficulty
Best-fit pathway: workplace mediation
Mediation may be appropriate when conflict is established, communication has broken down, and both parties are willing to participate in a structured, confidential process.
4. Specific allegations of bullying, harassment, discrimination, threats, misconduct or policy breach
Best-fit pathway: formal investigation or investigation referral
Findings of fact may be required before repair or resolution work can safely occur.
5. Wider team tension, repeated conflict, absenteeism, withdrawal or resignation risk
Best-fit pathway: team reset or psychosocial risk review
The issue may be broader than just two people and may require a review of work design, role clarity, communication, leadership conditions, team expectations, or psychosocial risk controls.
6. The manager is unsure which pathway applies
Best-fit pathway: confidential triage call or Quick Help Advisory
Early external advice can help clarify the safest and most proportionate next step before the issue escalates.
Pathway 1: Internal management response
An internal management response may be appropriate when the issue is recent and low-level, and there are no serious allegations or immediate safety concerns.
This may include:
clarifying communication expectations
reinforcing respectful workplace behaviour
addressing role confusion
clarifying decision-making authority
resetting meeting expectations
managing performance concerns fairly
following up after an informal issue has been raised
This pathway should still be structured. Informal does not mean undocumented, vague or casual.
A manager should clarify what is expected, what will change, who is responsible, and when the matter will be reviewed.
Pathway 2: Facilitated workplace conversation
A facilitated conversation may be appropriate where both employees need help to discuss the issue constructively, but the matter does not require a formal investigation or full mediation process.
This may suit situations where:
both people are willing to participate
There are no serious misconduct allegations requiring findings
The relationship is strained but still workable
The goal is to clarify expectations and agree on future working arrangements
The issue is affecting workflow, communication or team functioning
The aim is not forced friendship. The aim is a workable professional relationship.
A facilitated conversation should be prepared properly. Each person should understand the purpose, process, confidentiality boundaries and intended outcome.
Pathway 3: Workplace mediation
Workplace mediation may be appropriate where conflict is established, communication has broken down, and the parties are willing to participate in a structured, confidential process.
Mediation can help parties:
understand each other’s perspectives
discuss impact in a structured environment
identify what has contributed to the conflict
negotiate future communication expectations
reach a practical working agreement
Mediation is not suitable for every matter.
It may not be appropriate where there are serious allegations that need to be tested first, where participation is not voluntary, where there is a significant safety concern, or where one person may feel pressured to agree.
Pathway 4: Formal investigation
A formal investigation may be required when specific allegations require findings of fact.
This may include allegations of:
bullying
harassment
discrimination
sexual harassment
aggression or threats
serious misconduct
victimisation
breach of policy
safety-related conduct
An investigation is not primarily a relationship repair process. It is a fact-finding process.
If an investigation is required, the process must be fair, impartial, timely and procedurally sound. Managers should be careful not to engage in informal conversations that could compromise a later investigation.
Pathway 5: Team reset or psychosocial risk review
Sometimes the conflict between two employees is only the visible part of a wider issue.
A broader team reset or psychosocial risk review may be needed where:
Several team members are affected
the conflict has been allowed to continue for months
people are avoiding work tasks or each other
there are signs of stress, absenteeism, withdrawal or resignation risk
the issue is connected to workload, unclear roles, poor support, change or poor organisational justice
The manager is part of the issue
trust in internal processes has been damaged
The team needs help to reset expectations and communication
In these situations, focusing only on the two individuals may miss the real risk.
The better question is:
“What conditions are allowing this conflict to continue or escalate?”
When to book a confidential triage call
A confidential triage call is useful when you can see there is a problem, but you are unsure what to do next.
It may be the right step if:
Two employees are already in conflict, and the issue is affecting the team
You are unsure whether the matter needs management action, mediation, investigation or psychosocial risk advice
A complaint has been raised, and you do not want to mishandle the first response
one or both employees are distressed, defensive or unwilling to communicate
You do not have an internal HR or people and culture function
You are an HR consultant supporting a client and want an independent conflict or psychosocial risk perspective
previous attempts to resolve the matter have not worked
the issue involves a manager, senior employee or power imbalance
The wider team is starting to take sides
you want to act early before the matter becomes a formal complaint, workers' compensation issue, resignation risk or ongoing team problem
The purpose of the triage call is not to force the matter into a service. It is to clarify what type of issue you may be dealing with, what immediate risks need to be considered, and what pathway is most proportionate.
Book a free confidential triage call if you can see the issue, but are unsure what to say or how to solve it.
A practical first-response checklist
If two employees conflict, managers can use the See. Say. Solve. approach as a first-response checklist.
See
What has happened?
Is this a one-off issue or a repeated pattern?
Is anyone unsafe, distressed or unable to work?
Are there specific allegations?
Is the wider team affected?
Is the issue linked to workload, role clarity, communication, fairness, performance or change?
Say
Acknowledge the issue without taking sides.
Explain that you will speak with each person separately.
Avoid labelling the matter too early.
Use calm, neutral and procedurally fair language.
Set immediate expectations for respectful conduct while the matter is being clarified.
Solve
Decide whether the matter requires internal management, a facilitated conversation, workplace mediation, formal investigation, team reset work or psychosocial risk advice.
Document the decision and rationale.
Follow up to check whether the action taken is working.
Seek external support where the issue is complex, sensitive, escalating or outside internal capability.
How Resolution House Consulting can help
Resolution House Consulting supports small- to medium-sized organisations, managers, business owners, HR contacts, and referral partners in responding to workplace conflict early, fairly, and practically.
The right support depends on the issue.
Quick Help — Early Intervention and Advisory
Quick Help is for emerging conflicts, complaints, workplace tensions, or situations where clear next steps are needed quickly.
This may be the right pathway when something has just come up, and you need independent advice before the matter becomes larger, more formal or more difficult to manage.
Resolve — Workplace Mediation and Conflict Resolution
Resolve is for established conflicts, grievances, and communication breakdowns that require structured intervention.
This may include facilitated workplace conversations, two-party workplace mediation, small group mediation, or post-investigation workplace repair.
Reset — Facilitation and Team Reset Work
Reset is for teams that have been affected by conflict, complaint fatigue, relational strain, leadership disruption or communication breakdown.
This pathway helps teams stabilise, clarify expectations and rebuild more workable ways of communicating and operating.
Comply — Psychosocial Advisory and Reviews
Comply is for organisations seeking practical support to identify psychosocial hazards, review team strain, strengthen systems and respond confidently to current work health and safety expectations.
This may be relevant where the conflict is connected to role clarity, workload, poor support, team dynamics, leadership response or broader psychosocial risk.
Free confidential triage call
If you are unsure where to start, begin with a free confidential triage call.
In that call, we can help clarify:
What type of issue are you dealing with
What immediate risks need to be considered
whether the matter appears suitable for internal management, facilitated conversation, workplace mediation, investigation referral, team reset work or psychosocial advisory support
What is the next step that is most proportionate
If you see the issue but aren't sure what to say or how to solve it, please book a free confidential triage call before the matter escalates.
About the author
Written by Sue Batten, founder of Resolution House Consulting.
Sue is an AMDRAS-accredited mediator and conflict coach with more than 20 years of senior leadership experience across SMEs, mental health, disability, community and people-intensive settings. Her work focuses on workplace conflict, mediation, team reset, difficult conversations, and psychosocial risk advisory.
Source note
This article is informed by Australian work health and safety guidance, psychosocial risk guidance, workplace bullying guidance and contemporary workplace conflict research.
Sources include:
Safe Work Australia — Identifying, assessing, controlling and reviewing psychosocial risks
WorkSafe Queensland — Poor workplace relationships, including interpersonal conflict
WorkSafe Queensland — Managing the risk of psychosocial hazards at work Code of Practice 2022
Safe Work Australia — Key Work Health and Safety Statistics Australia 2025
Related RHC resources and services
