Many employers are formalising workplace conflict earlier than the situation actually requires. According to Acas, British employers spend an estimated £2.36 billion a year managing formal disciplinary and grievance procedures, roughly ten times the £250 million spent resolving conflict informally, even though informal resolution is proportionate in most cases.
Break that down further, and it gets you thinking. These figures come from Acas’s consultation on its draft Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, launched on 30 July 2026, which puts the picture in sharper relief: there are an estimated 1.7 million formal disciplinary cases each year, at an average management cost of £1,141 per case, plus around 375,000 formal grievances. Formality is expensive, and it’s also common. Acas research found that 44% of working-age adults in Great Britain had experienced conflict at work in the previous 12 months, the highest level of individual workplace conflict ever reported in a survey of workers in Great Britain.
Acas chair Baroness Maggie Jones has made the same case, describing formal processes as “very costly for everyone involved” and arguing that early intervention saves money and time while supporting staff wellbeing.
So, the question worth asking is this: do organisations have more of a conversation problem than a conduct problem? Are we allowing issues to drift until someone raises a grievance, submits a written complaint, or demands an investigation, rather than having a timely and respectful conversation early on? Are we relying on formal procedure as a substitute for good management? In my view, the answer to both is usually yes, and it’s costly.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that we do not need formal processes. They remain essential for serious misconduct, harassment, discrimination and safeguarding concerns, and in situations where the facts are genuinely disputed or the risks are significant. This isn’t a case against formality, it’s a case against reaching for it too early.
Why do managers default to formal disciplinary processes?
Starting a formal process often feels like the lowest-risk option for managers, even when it isn’t. There are a few common reasons why:
- They’re worried about saying or doing the wrong thing
- They fear accusations of bias or unfair treatment
- They don’t feel confident addressing conflict directly
- They assume that documenting everything means formalising everything
And then there’s the AI factor. Employees are increasingly arriving with detailed, legalistic written complaints, drafted with help from tools like ChatGPT or Claude, a shift significant enough that Acas is now explicitly consulting on how AI should be addressed within its own Code of Practice. When both sides of a dispute can generate polished, tribunal-ready documents in minutes, the temptation to formalise early only grows.
But here’s the thing: formality doesn’t automatically reduce risk, it can actually escalate it. The moment a case is formalised, the language changes. Emails start being written with an employment tribunal in mind. People become guarded. Everyone busies themselves building evidence and proving their point, rather than working together to find a solution.
What does workplace conflict actually cost beyond management time?
The £2.36 billion Acas estimate only captures the direct cost of managing formal processes. The wider organisational cost is often much greater once formal meetings, investigations, evidence-gathering, hearings and appeals are factored in, not to mention the growing likelihood of stress-related absence once someone is involved in a formal process.
In my view, however, the most significant cost is the one that does not appear in any figure: the loss of trust. Even when a complaint is not upheld, the relationship between the people involved can be permanently changed.
Does informal resolution mean a concern isn't being taken seriously?
Informal resolution means addressing a workplace concern proportionately, through timely, direct conversation, before it escalates into a written process. It does not mean:
- Ignoring poor behaviour
- Telling an employee to “get over it”
- Shielding a manager from scrutiny
- Discouraging someone from exercising their right to raise a formal grievance
Equally, informal resolution will not always be appropriate. Serious concerns require a formal process, but the response should be proportionate to what’s actually happened, not the default setting for every disagreement.
Formal vs. informal: which fits the situation?
| Formal process | Informal resolution | |
|---|---|---|
| Typical cost | Averages £1,141 per disciplinary case in direct management time alone, before investigations, hearings and appeals | Roughly a tenth of the total annual cost of formal processes across GB employers (Acas) |
| Speed | Slower; involves scheduled meetings, evidence-gathering, hearings and appeal windows | Fast; can happen in a single timely conversation |
| Relationship impact | Language shifts toward evidence-building; relationships can be permanently changed even when a complaint isn't upheld | Lower risk to the working relationship when handled early and respectfully |
| Best suited to | Serious misconduct, harassment, discrimination, safeguarding concerns, or genuinely disputed facts | Day-to-day friction, misunderstandings, and concerns that can still be resolved through direct conversation |
How can employers build the capability to resolve conflict early?
The real lesson is about timing and capability: getting better at identifying and addressing conflict before a formal process becomes necessary.
That means creating a culture where people feel able to raise concerns, receive honest feedback, and trust that there will be a genuine attempt to resolve issues early. It also means equipping line managers with the judgement, confidence and emotional intelligence to have difficult conversations, rather than defaulting to HR at the first sign of trouble.
This capability-building is where we spend much of our time and attention at Cintra: helping managers recognise the approach that genuinely fits the situation in front of them, rather than defaulting to a formal process every time.
The best formal process is sometimes the one that effective management makes unnecessary.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Are employers formalising workplace conflict too quickly?
A: Often, yes. Acas figures show formal disciplinary and grievance procedures cost British employers an estimated £2.36 billion a year, roughly ten times the £250 million spent resolving conflict informally, suggesting many cases could be resolved through earlier, direct conversation.
Q: What does "informal resolution" mean in a workplace conflict?
A: Informal resolution means addressing a concern proportionately, through a timely, respectful conversation, before it escalates into a written grievance or disciplinary process. It does not mean ignoring poor behaviour or discouraging someone from raising a formal grievance if they choose to.
Q: When should a workplace concern go through a formal process instead of an informal conversation?
A: Formal process is essential for serious misconduct, harassment, discrimination, safeguarding concerns, or situations where the facts are genuinely disputed or the risks are significant. Day-to-day friction and misunderstandings are usually better suited to informal resolution.
Q: Does formalising a workplace dispute reduce the organisation's risk?
A: Not automatically. Once a case is formalised, language shifts toward building evidence for a potential tribunal, people become guarded, and the working relationship can be permanently changed, even when a complaint is not upheld.
Q: How much does a formal disciplinary case cost on average?
A: Acas estimates the average management cost of a formal disciplinary case at £1,141, with around 1.7 million such cases and 375,000 formal grievances handled by British employers each year.
Q: How can employers reduce reliance on formal disciplinary and grievance processes?
A: By building line managers' confidence and skill in having early, direct conversations about conflict, so that formal process becomes something that's used when genuinely needed rather than the default response to every disagreement.
