Lorna Pestana from Law at Work hosted our recent #GrowMySME session sponsored by NatWest International

Workplace conflict is costing UK businesses £28.5 billion a year.

That figure alone should be enough to make any leader sit up and take notice – but the real issue isn’t the cost. It’s the silence that comes before it.

Most disputes don’t begin with bad intent. They begin with avoidance – delayed conversations, mixed messages, and a reluctance to address issues before they take root.

The data backs this up. The most common trigger for workplace conflict is capability and performance, followed by personal disagreements and relationship breakdown.

More than half of employees who experience conflict report stress, anxiety or depression as a result.

And when we analyse tribunal outcomes using AI cross-case analysis, four failure patterns consistently emerge:

  • Meetings that drift without a clear purpose – leaving the employee unsure what’s actually being decided
  • Conversations that happen too late, or not at all – by the time a manager acts, the issue has escalated into a formal dispute that could have been avoided
  • Poor documentation – without a clear written record, employers are exposed to “he said, she said” situations where evidence becomes the deciding factor
  • Mixing support and sanction – blurring informal support with formal process creates legal risk and confusion on both sides

So why don’t more managers just have the conversation?

More often than not it comes down to discomfort. Fear of saying the wrong thing, triggering a grievance, or making things worse.

But if you’re uncomfortable having the conversation now, you’ll be far more uncomfortable managing the issue later.

Avoidance doesn’t remove risk – it compounds it.

To tackle this with confidence, you can use a practical five-point plan:

  • Purpose – Be clear from the outset. Open with “I want to talk about X because it’s affecting Y.” Don’t let the meeting drift.
  • Facts – Ground the conversation in what you’ve actually observed. Behaviours, performance, specific incidents — not assumptions or generalisations.
  • Impact – Name the effect on the team, the business, or the individual. Who is affected and in what way?
  • Listen – Prepare your questions in advance and create genuine space for the other person to respond. You may learn something that changes the picture.
  • Actions – Close with clarity. What needs to change, by when, and what support is in place?

Language matters enormously here too.

Replacing “you always…” with “on three occasions this month…” immediately shifts the tone from accusation to evidence.

Describing impact rather than labelling attitude – “when X happens, the effect is Y” rather than “your attitude is the problem” – keeps the conversation constructive.

And when emotion runs high, as it often does, the approach is simple: acknowledge the feeling (“I can see this is frustrating“), stay calm, don’t mirror escalation, and bring it back to facts and expectations.

Perhaps the most important distinction to draw is this: kindness and niceness are not the same thing.

Avoiding a difficult conversation might feel kind in the moment, but it rarely serves the person on the receiving end. Most employment disputes don’t start with bad intent – they start with silence, delay, or mixed messages.

The managers who get this right are the ones who speak up early, clearly, and with evidence.

That’s what protects their people, their organisations, and ultimately themselves.

Full slides can be found here – GCC – Difficult Conversations slides.

Law At Work supports businesses across People & Culture, Health & Safety, Growth & Learning, Tribunals, Data, and Board Advisory.