The lasting image of the recent State of the Union address to US Congress was the stark polarised political landscape that was so evident for all to see; most Republicans were ecstatic and enthusiastic while, on the other side of the aisle, there was disbelief and anger at what was being said. 

But we know that this is the reality of our world today. It is a world that is more interconnected than at any time in history yet increased polarisation and tribalism threatens social cohesion and democratic stability. Recent polling by IPSOS found that four in five British adults perceive the UK as divided in their political views. Almost every issue today has two camps each with deeply passionate views on the subject. Brexit. Immigration. Climate change. The Middle East. Gender. It is hard to find a topic where this is not the case.   

Some of us (of a certain age) recall a halcyon time when the world was kinder and when things were less binary. Debate was civilised and people were prepared to shift their view if presented with evidence to back this up. Most of us think that the current landscape is fuelled by social media and online platforms where views are amplified and socially reinforced across communities. There is an argument that social media does not operate in isolation and that broader social and political contexts – geopolitical events, economic stress, political rhetoric – create the environment within which disagreements take hold and flourish.   

It would be naïve to assume that organisations are immune from this. The conventional tools that we have relied on to deal with conflict in the workplace were created in a very different world – some in the 1970s. These tend to kick in after the event and, in many ways, exacerbate an already difficult situation. Think about the impact of an employee raising a grievance against a colleague or moving to a disciplinary process when a line has been crossed in terms of conduct. These invariably have a detrimental impact on the people involved, the wider team, the organisation’s culture and potentially its reputation and brand.

Most forward-looking companies now want to make sure that they take proactive and pre-emptive steps rather than reacting when issues escalate; they rightly take the view that prevention is essential today in good straightforward people management. These measures include:

• Creating a clear policy and procedural framework
• Ensuring managers are properly trained
• Encouraging early, informal resolution
• Promoting psychological safety and open communication
• Focusing on behaviour and not just performance
• Managing and monitoring workplace culture
• Using workplace mediation where appropriate
• Ensuring fair and consistent treatment for everyone 
• Supporting wellbeing
• Handling change carefully 

What is clear is that employers and Employment Tribunals are seeing an increase in disputes involving messaging and social media with these communications being used in disputes and Tribunals accepting social media evidence in claims. This apparently has tripled in recent years with Tribunals accepting digital messages as contemporaneous evidence in proceedings.

The boundaries that have traditionally existed between our work and our personal lives is becoming increasingly blurred which can easily trigger emotional flare-ups and disagreements between work colleagues; this can become especially problematic when misunderstandings arise around tone and messaging styles. A particular cause for concern is ‘banter’ especially when these communications are viewed by others as inappropriate or offensive. 

The title of this article – Beyond Dispute – is taken from a remarkable book by Daniel Taub where he reflects on how ancient religious insights might be applied to some of today’s conflicts and disputes. In Christianity, the belief is that issues should be addressed privately and only escalated where necessary. Judaism promotes the case for constructive disagreement in the search for truth. Islam emphasises the need for reconciliation and the restoration of relationships, not victory. Buddhism asks us to reflect on anger and attachment (to a view) as drivers for conflict. There are a number of striking themes that emerge across these traditions that can be applied in the workplace.     

Shared Principle                                                          Workplace Application

Early dialogue                                                                              Encourage informal resolution

Proportional escalation                                                          Avoid over-legalising minor disputes

Mediation                                                                                 Use neutral facilitators

Dignity and respect                                                                 Protect relationships

Self-reflection                                                                          Train managers in emotional intelligence

Forgiveness/restoration                                                          Rebuild working relationships

So, it’s clear that people have argued and have been in dispute throughout history; this is nothing new. What has changed is the amplification of these views through social media and it is inevitable that this will permeate from our private lives into the workplace. Knowing this, we have an obligation to ensure that our organisations have the right tools in place to pre-empt and facilitate their resolution and that our managers are equipped with the right skills to nip potential issues in the bud. We need to ensure that our people understand that what they say outside work on social media has implications for them in their roles and that there are potential consequences for them where the line (whatever that is) has been crossed.   

There is, however, a paradox here in that we need to recognise that constructive disagreement is vital in every creative process; it is through this that organisations innovate and grow. Taub describes arguments as the ‘engines to inspire and spur on creative thoughts’ but this only works when participants are working towards achieving the best possible outcome and where there is mutual trust and respect. He also stresses the importance of ‘separating the arguer from the argument’ and the need to find value in our differences. Facilitating this in today’s complex workplace is challenging and requires us to ensure that our leaders – especially our front line managers - are equipped with the sophisticated skills to identify and manage potential risks without stifling engagement or delivering a sub-optimal outcome. It reinforces the need for organisations to continue to invest in building the capability of their leaders; the risks of not doing so are huge.

10 March 2026