Death. Taxes. Conflict. Pick the Odd One Out.

Conflict is one of those things we often talk about as if it is optional. Something that could have been avoided if only someone had handled things better, followed the policy more closely or chosen different words.

The reality is that conflict is unavoidable. It is like death and taxes. It just is.

Conflict is part of working life because it is part of being human. People have different expectations, needs, pressures, values and experiences. At some point, those differences rub up against each other.

The real question is not whether conflict will happen, but what we do when it does.

Increasingly, that question matters far more than it used to. The Employment Rights Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 18 December 2025, and its provisions are now being introduced in stages throughout 2026 and 2027. As employment rights continue to expand and begin to apply earlier in the employment relationship, the everyday conversations managers have with their teams carry more weight.

More emotional weight. More relational weight. More legal weight too.

Some changes have already arrived. Others, particularly those due in 2027, will materially alter the risk attached to everyday management decisions and conversations. What continues to strike me is not simply the scale of the legislation, but the human reality sitting underneath it.

Rights live in statute, policy and contracts, but they are experienced in conversations. This is where many organisations struggle.

Conflict isn’t the problem. Avoidance is.

Data from ACAS shows that around two-fifths of working people have experienced conflict at work in the past year, the highest level ever recorded, and it is not just low-level friction. Around two-thirds link that conflict directly to stress or anxiety, and more than half say it affects their motivation and commitment. Viewed through a financial lens, ACAS estimates that workplace conflict costs UK organisations over £30 billion a year. That figure alone should give leaders pause.

Even so, it does not capture the full picture.

It does not account for the full human cost.

Sleepless nights. The cognitive load of constantly second-guessing conversations. Quiet disengagement. The energy spent avoiding someone rather than doing meaningful work. The damage to confidence, health, identity, relationships and financial security.

Nor does it capture what happens when those consequences move beyond the workplace. The NHS may treat the resulting mental or physical ill health. The welfare system may support someone who can no longer remain in work. The Exchequer loses tax and National Insurance revenue. Families absorb the emotional, practical and financial pressure. Tribunals, regulators, trade unions and professional bodies may also become involved.

No single institution sees the whole picture, but the person experiencing the conflict lives all of it.

The figure also cannot fully account for the way conflict multiplies when it is not addressed early. The true personal, organisational, economic and societal cost is therefore likely to be substantially higher than the amount ACAS has been able to calculate.

Avoidance has a cost. It always does.

A conversation that feels uncomfortable today often turns into weeks or months of emails, meetings, HR involvement, sickness absence, performance management, grievances and, sometimes, exit or tribunal processes.

The time people think they are saving by not having a conversation is usually paid back many times over later.

Why this matters more now

Timing is a critical factor.

Rights are applying earlier. Duties on employers are strengthening. Enforcement is increasing. The margin for poor communication is shrinking. From 1 January 2027, a series of changes will significantly strengthen employee rights and shift expectations around how people are managed, particularly during the early stages of employment. These changes reflect a broader move towards greater protection, fairness and consistency in working life, alongside increased scrutiny of how decisions are made and communicated. Some of the detailed rules and commencement dates are still being developed, but the direction of travel is clear.

A clumsy conversation in month two of employment now carries more risk than it once did. A poorly handled discussion about performance, absence, flexible working or conduct can escalate far more quickly. This happens not because people are trying to be difficult, but because the system around them is changing.

Six months passes quickly. Concerns left unspoken during induction or probation do not disappear. They grow. A vague expectation in month one can become a performance concern in month four and an apparently unexpected dismissal in month six. Probation periods will still have a place, but the label itself offers no protection from poor management. Silence for five months followed by a formal conversation in month six is not meaningful performance management. People need to know what is expected, where concerns exist, what needs to change and what support is available.

As uncertainty increases, anxiety follows. Uncertainty is one of the biggest drivers of conflict. When people do not know where they stand, or when expectations feel unclear or inconsistent, they fill in the gaps themselves and here worst-case assumptions are common. Employees may become anxious about their security, their rights or whether raising a concern will make matters worse. Managers may become so worried about saying the wrong thing that they say nothing at all.

This is often where organisations default to policy.

More process. More documentation. More formality.

Documentation matters. Fair process matters. Consistency matters. The uncomfortable truth is that you cannot policy your way out of poor communication.

The conversations we label as “difficult”

One of the most unhelpful habits in workplaces is labelling certain conversations as difficult. The moment that label is applied, the brain treats the situation as a threat.

“I need to have a difficult conversation about performance.”
“I need to have a difficult conversation about absence.”
“I need to have a difficult conversation about behaviour.”

Framing conversations this way leads to avoidance, rushing or defensiveness. No one communicates well from a place of threat. A simple but powerful shift is to stop calling these conversations difficult and start calling them Essential.

Essential conversations protect relationships, performance and wellbeing in the long run. They do not need to be confrontational, but they do require clarity, curiosity and care. When these conversations do not happen early, conflict hardens. Positions become fixed. Emotions intensify. Issues that could have been resolved informally start to feel too big, too risky or too charged. This matters even more as unfair dismissal protection begins earlier in the employment relationship. An employee should not reach the end of a probation period and discover, for the first time, that their manager has been concerned for months. Feedback needs to be honest. Expectations need to be clear. Support needs to be real, rather than something that exists only in a policy or meeting note.

These conversations are still conflict, but they are approached in ways that are constructive. They build trust, respect and understanding. They create the possibility of real change and the space for innovation and creativity.

Not every essential conversation will produce agreement. Sometimes the outcome will still be a formal process, a difficult decision or the end of an employment relationship.

Constructive conflict resolution is not about avoiding accountability or making every relationship work. It is about ensuring that people understand what is happening, why it is happening and that they have been treated fairly and humanely along the way.

The wellbeing impact we don’t talk about enough

Workplace conflict is one of the biggest contributors to poor mental wellbeing at work, yet it is rarely named as such. Disengagement and emotional exhaustion become more likely, alongside increased sickness absence. Many people do nothing because the environment does not feel safe enough to raise concerns early.

The impact deepens when differences in how people think, process and respond are taken into account. Unclear communication, rushed conversations, ambiguous expectations and tone mismatches increase cognitive load for many individuals, making already challenging situations harder to navigate. Stress rises further when clarity and psychological safety are inconsistent.

For some people, asking for clarity is interpreted as challenge. Direct communication is mistaken for hostility. Overwhelm is seen as poor attitude. A need for additional processing time is treated as avoidance or lack of capability.

Once those assumptions enter a formal process, the original issue can become obscured by labels, defensiveness and procedural escalation.

Research shows that when people do not feel safe to speak up, issues are more likely to escalate than resolve. ACAS and CIPD findings consistently show that much workplace conflict remains informal and unseen by HR, while still carrying a significant cost to wellbeing.

The absence of a grievance or tribunal claim does not mean conflict is absent. Nor does it mean it has been resolved.

A case may remain invisible to HR while continuing to affect health, confidence, productivity and relationships. A process may be officially closed while the person remains absent, disengaged or unable to trust the organisation again.

Good communication helps to reduce that load. Clear expectations, thoughtful pacing, active listening and psychological safety support better wellbeing, stronger engagement and more effective decision-making.

These conditions benefit people with different thinking styles and needs, not only those with recognised labels.

This is not about special treatment.
It is about fairness.

Why managers struggle, even when they care

The same pattern appears repeatedly in practice. Managers rarely struggle because they do not know the policy. Most understand what the process requires. The challenge lies in the emotional reality of conflict. Concerns about saying the wrong thing, making matters worse or opening something they cannot close lead to delay. Time pressure is often used as the justification. Process then becomes a shield.

The changes introduced through the Employment Rights Act may heighten that anxiety. When managers believe that every imperfect sentence carries legal risk, they can become overly cautious, overly formal or avoidant, but saying nothing also carries risk. Concerns remain unaddressed. Expectations become less clear. Employees sense that something is wrong without knowing what it is. By the time the conversation finally happens, both sides may already feel defensive.

Policy without humanity rarely lands well.

When people reflect on conflict later, the policy itself is rarely the focus. The how matters more.

Tone. Intent. Timing.

Whether the concern came as a surprise. Whether expectations had been made clear. Whether the person felt listened to, or not. Whether questions were answered. Whether support was genuinely offered. Whether the outcome appeared to have been decided before the conversation began.

This is why building capability matters more than building thicker rulebooks. Managers need enough confidence to speak early and honestly. They also need the skills to listen, remain curious and recognise when their own fear or assumptions are affecting the conversation.

The case for early, human resolution

Early resolution is not informal or casual. It is timely, intentional and human.

It involves noticing small misalignments before they become entrenched. Conversations happen while emotions are still manageable. Curiosity replaces judgement. Expectations are clarified before assumptions become conclusions. This does not mean abandoning process.

Early resolution and fair process are not opposites. A timely conversation can sit alongside appropriate records, reasonable support and clear expectations. In many cases, addressing concerns properly at an early stage makes later formal action less likely. Where formal action is necessary, those earlier conversations also make the process fairer and less surprising.

The 2027 changes should not encourage organisations to make quicker, colder decisions before employees reach six months’ service. They should encourage organisations to manage people properly from the beginning. Support in this area changes outcomes. Conversations happen sooner. Issues de-escalate. Wellbeing improves. Employment rights start to feel workable rather than hazardous in everyday working life.

The way people are trained to engage with conflict plays a critical role here. Traditional “Difficult Conversations” training often teaches people how to talk, but not why the conflict exists. It may offer a script for opening a meeting without helping managers understand what happens when fear, identity, power, unmet expectations or perceived threat enter the room. Without attention to root causes and conflict theory, learning can remain short-lived or superficial; understanding is needed alongside technique.

Conflict coaching and mediation also have a place, not only as last resorts, but as part of a broader preventative approach. These processes can help people understand their reactions under pressure and practise conversations they have been avoiding. They create space to separate what happened from the assumptions that have grown around it. The focus shifts to the how of communication, not just the what of policy.

Mediation will not be right for every situation. It should not be used to minimise serious misconduct, force participation or place responsibility for harmful behaviour onto the person affected by it. When used appropriately, however, mediation and conflict coaching can help people address issues before positions harden and before the consequences spread beyond the workplace.

Conflict just is. What matters is what we do next.

Conflict will always be part of work. That reality does not represent failure.

The real cost appears when conflict is avoided, rushed or hidden behind policy instead of being addressed with the person involved. The provisions of the Employment Rights Act 2025 are being introduced in stages, with some of the most significant changes to the employment relationship due during 2027. As employment rights evolve, organisations that thrive will not be the ones with the most complex processes.

They will be the ones with the strongest foundations of communication.

They will set expectations early.
They will address concerns before they become accusations.
They will equip managers to be clear and human.
They will understand that compliance and compassion are not competing priorities.

Rights do not live or die in legislation, policy and process.
They live or die in conversations.