How to Handle Workplace Conflict in a Small Team

Why small teams can't afford to let conflict sit

In a business with fewer than ten people, two colleagues who aren't getting on isn't a contained problem — it affects meeting dynamics, project handovers, and the general atmosphere for everyone else, because there's no large team structure to absorb the friction. What might be a manageable undercurrent in a big organisation becomes a dominant feature of daily working life in a small one.

This is why waiting for conflict to resolve itself is usually the wrong instinct, even though it's a very natural one — most people would rather avoid an awkward conversation than start one. The cost of delay in a small team tends to be higher than the discomfort of addressing it early, because the problem rarely fixes itself and often gets entrenched instead.

Recognising conflict before it escalates

Conflict often shows up before anyone says the word 'conflict' out loud: two people copying you into emails to score points, a sudden drop-off in informal collaboration between colleagues who used to work well together, one person consistently routing around another rather than dealing with them directly, or a noticeable change in mood whenever two particular people are in the same meeting.

Noticing these signs early gives you the chance to intervene with a light touch — a quick informal check-in with each person — rather than waiting until the situation has calcified into entrenched positions that are much harder to shift.

Talking to each person privately first

Before bringing two people together, speak to each individually. Ask what's happened from their perspective, what impact it's having on their work, and what outcome they'd actually want. Listen without immediately taking sides or agreeing to a version of events you haven't yet heard the other side of — your job at this stage is to understand, not to judge.

This step also lets you gauge whether the situation is a genuine two-way misunderstanding that a calm conversation can resolve, or something more serious — a pattern of behaviour that one person is directing at another, which changes the approach significantly and may need to move straight to a formal process rather than informal mediation.

Running the joint conversation

If both people are willing and the situation is a genuine misunderstanding or a manageable clash of working styles, bring them together for a structured conversation. Set ground rules at the start — one person speaks at a time, focus on specific behaviours and their impact rather than character, and the goal is a workable way forward, not establishing who was more in the right.

Ask each person to describe, factually, a specific incident and its impact, rather than general complaints about the other person. 'You interrupted me three times in Tuesday's meeting and it made me stop contributing' is workable; 'you never let me speak' invites an argument about whether that's literally true rather than addressing the actual pattern.

1. Set ground rules: one voice at a time, focus on behaviour and impact, not character
2. Each person describes a specific recent incident and its effect on them
3. Both are asked what they'd like to see change going forward
4. Agree specific, observable changes both sides will make
5. Set a date to check back in on whether the agreement is holding

Keep the joint conversation about the future — what changes from here — rather than trying to establish a final, agreed version of exactly what happened in the past.

When it's not a two-way conflict

Not everything that looks like conflict between colleagues is a genuine two-way issue. If one person's private account describes behaviour that could amount to bullying, harassment or discrimination, this is not something to resolve through informal mediation between equals — it needs to be treated as a formal grievance from the outset, taken seriously, and investigated properly.

Mixing up these two categories is one of the most damaging mistakes a manager can make. Treating a genuine bullying or harassment complaint as 'just a personality clash to mediate' can cause real harm to the person raising it, and can also expose the business to legal risk if handled poorly.

Moving to a formal grievance

If informal conversation doesn't resolve the situation, if either party isn't willing to engage informally, or if the complaint involves bullying, harassment or discrimination, move to a formal grievance process. This should follow your written grievance procedure if you have one, and Acas guidance and the Acas Code of Practice if you don't yet have a formal policy in place.

A formal process typically involves a proper investigation, a meeting where the person raising the grievance can set out their concerns and be accompanied, a considered outcome communicated in writing, and a right of appeal. As with underperformance and disciplinary situations, the specifics should be checked against current Acas and GOV.UK guidance, and independent advice taken for anything involving allegations of harassment, discrimination or bullying.

I am not a lawyer or HR professional. Any conflict involving allegations of bullying, harassment or discrimination should be checked against current Acas and GOV.UK guidance, or with a qualified adviser, and taken seriously from the outset.

Rebuilding working relationships afterwards

Even a well-handled resolution doesn't automatically restore full trust between two colleagues, and it's worth checking in with both separately after a few weeks to see whether the agreement is actually holding day to day, not just in the room where it was agreed. Small, specific check-ins tend to work better than a single follow-up meeting weeks later, because they catch drift early.

If the working relationship remains genuinely difficult despite a good-faith resolution attempt, consider whether restructuring who works closely with whom on a day-to-day basis is a more realistic long-term fix than continuing to push for a relationship neither person particularly wants.