Informal resolution: asking a different question to “who’s right?”

The grievance arrives in ER without warning.

Conversations with the manager and relevant HRBP suggest none of its contents have been previously raised or discussed. Their file shows that the employee has been with the employer over ten years and been a high performer for much of that.

The grievance runs to 12 pages with a detailed Appendix of over 20 emails and Teams messages. It’s carefully structured and reads like a product of AI. It lists meetings and projects the employee has been excluded from and alleges that less experienced, named colleagues receive more interesting work and more favourable treatment. It gives significant detail of a number of occasions when the employee’s contributions have been diminished, criticised or ignored (and others treated differently). Where the allegations relate to meetings, there are numerous ‘quotes’ from the manager.

Under the heading on ‘micromanagement’ there are numerous detailed allegations about the manager’s conduct going back 15 months. The employee has clearly kept detailed notes.  

The initial discussion with the manager tells a different story: the employee is a weaker performer who had not previously been properly managed. In the 16 months that the manager has been responsible for them, the employee has been given less latitude than they had previously enjoyed. The last six months has seen closer management due to performance concerns. The employee is not in PIP territory, but they need to adapt their work style, particularly to embrace technology.

The ER practitioner considers what’s before them:

(i) there’s no reason to believe that the employee doesn’t sincerely believe what they’re alleging; that they have experienced this as bullying, exclusion and an attempt to manage them out;

(ii) the manager is clear that they’re doing their job properly;

(iii) although there’s nothing particularly egregious suggested, nothing pointing to serious misconduct or a regulatory issue; it feels like something that the employer should take seriously; and

(iv) there’s no specific allegation of discrimination, but it would be quite a small step for the employee to suggest age discrimination. They’re 10-15 years older than the named employees and suggest they’re viewed as slow to adapt to technology.

And then, they consider the restrictions of a formal investigation

The practitioner considers their options. This is the third grievance of this scale and complexity they’ve received this week. A serious backlog is developing and, with resources already stretched, no-one is likely to look at this for six weeks, perhaps longer.

But it isn’t just a question of resources. The limitations of the grievance investigation process are becoming clearer:

1. The result will be essentially binary. However many shades of grey the evidence contains, ultimately the process focuses on deciding whether the complaint, or each part of it, is upheld or not.

2. There’s limited scope for creative solutions. Recommendations are possible, but an investigation is backward-looking, with the purpose of reaching findings, not exploring how the relationship could be repaired or how these two people might work together differently.

3. It is likely to take months and harden positions. It will also involve and disrupt the wider team, potentially creating factions. People will assemble evidence, defend their accounts and wait for judgment. Relationships that are already strained may become considerably harder to recover.

4. Most importantly, the outcome may resolve the complaint, but it won’t resolve the problem. That’s not an investigation’s job.

Informal resolution at work: a different question

Informal resolution asks something else. Not who’s right, but what could improve this situation?

It won’t always work, and it won’t always be enough. Some situations require investigation and findings. Sometimes formal and informal processes may need to sit alongside each other. But where the underlying problem is a working relationship that’s broken down, answering who was right can only get you so far.

What informal resolution could look like in practice

It can only work if both people are willing to try something different. That assessment needs to form part of the ER practitioner’s initial judgement.

If they’re willing, the grievance process can be paused while IR is pursued.

It will probably begin with the employee and the manager having separate conversations with a facilitator. Unlike an investigation, there’s likely to be no need to involve the wider team at all. But, both parties need to feel heard, without being told that their interpretation is necessarily correct.

A skilled facilitator can build on these individual conversations, exploring the gap between the two accounts: what each person is experiencing, what each is contributing to the dynamic and what each needs from the other.

Asked the right questions, the employee might begin to see legitimate management where they have experienced micromanagement. And the manager might understand how their management is landing, regardless of their intention.

They could then meet together, with the facilitator. Not to decide whose account wins, but to agree how they could best work together; how performance concerns will be raised; what autonomy for the employee looks like; what good communication requires and what each will do differently.

What employers need in place for IR to work

IR isn't simply another technique available to ER. It requires employers to redirect their attention, judgement and resources upstream, before a workplace problem has hardened.

They need to see the tensions, perception gaps and deteriorating relationships that sit behind formal complaints as deserving of attention and resource before they become established conflicts.

Only by intervening earlier will employers begin to stem the rising tide of formal grievances. In so doing, they will distinguish between situations that require determination and those requiring improvement, and build the confidence that fairness doesn’t always require a formal process.

They need to invest in encouraging and enabling managers to have early human conversations with team members, before positions harden.

And they need to invest in ER judgement: in practitioners capable of making the sort of assessment described above. Deciding when formal process is necessary, when informal resolution might achieve more, and when the two could work alongside each other.

Why IR matters now

Two developments make this increasingly important.

First, the draft ACAS Code puts greater emphasis on informal resolution, reflecting a broader direction of regulatory travel towards resolving workplace problems earlier and differently. The proposed Code would require employers to explain what they did to try to resolve matters informally, or why they didn’t.

Second, AI is making it easier than ever to produce long, detailed, apparently forensic grievances. Formal process is easier to initiate. Without a serious injection of resources, ER teams could drown. The effective introduction of IR could be a lifeline.

The challenge for employers is therefore not simply to process grievances more efficiently.

It’s to recognise when getting an answer from a formal process might not be enough.