Earlier this month, Caroline was joined by David Whincup, Employment Lawyer and Partner at Squire Patton Boggs, for a virtual event hosted by Winmark, titled “From a Grievance Culture to a Resolution Culture: Making Mediation Work for You.” The event brought together senior HR leaders, general counsel and business executives to challenge entrenched practices around grievance handling and to highlight a better path forward: mediation.
Caroline offered a compelling argument for why organisations need to move away from adversarial, process-heavy approaches to conflict — and towards a culture rooted in resolution, accountability and human connection.
A Culture Defined by Fear and Formality
Opening the session, Caroline invited attendees to reflect on their own organisational cultures. Are conflict and grievances viewed as risks to be managed through policy? Are managers equipped to have real conversations — or do they rely on HR processes to do it for them?
Poll results from the audience revealed a telling statistic: 63% said mediation was not even considered when managing a recent workplace conflict. For Caroline, this underscores a critical problem.
“Most managers today have grown up in a system that’s adversarial by default,” she explained. “The moment conflict emerges, people reach for formal processes, because it is all they have ever known. What’s lost in that system is trust, curiosity and ownership — the very things needed to repair relationships. And to achieve that, what’s needed is the removal of the fear which comes with a conscious decision to step outside the procedures your employer has laid down, probably many years ago”. No one ever lost their job for following formal procedures, even on the almost certain knowledge that they weren’t going to work.
David supported this view with a legal reality check. Contrary to popular belief, he noted, the ACAS Code of Practice does not require employers to conduct a formal grievance process. Instead, the Code simply requires that grievances be handled fairly and in good faith — which leaves the door wide open to alternative approaches like mediation, at least as a first step.
The Business (and Human) Case for Mediation
Caroline and David both emphasised that mediation is not “soft” or secondary — it’s smart. It is structured, confidential and designed to produce outcomes that parties own, rather than have imposed upon them.
David made the business case clear: grievances cost UK businesses billions of pounds a year through lost productivity, staff turnover, legal expenses and reputational harm. And yet a well-run mediation process can often resolve the issue in days or weeks, and for a fraction of the cost.
“Mediation doesn’t just fix the issue,” Caroline added. “It builds capability. It teaches people how to listen, how to give feedback, and how to disagree well.”
She walked attendees through the guiding principles of mediation:
- Voluntary but boundaried: Structured by a signed agreement, yet centred on choice
- Confidential: What’s said in the room stays in the room — empowering honesty
- Facilitated, not imposed: A neutral mediator supports, but never directs, the outcome
- Owned by the parties: Outcomes are agreed by participants, not handed down by managers or lawyers
Case Studies: Conflict in Action
Throughout the session, Caroline shared powerful, anonymised case studies from her own mediation practice — each one illustrating a different facet of workplace conflict:
- The Unspoken Apology
Two senior employees, once peers, were now in a strained manager-report relationship. The breakdown had originated from a perceived failure to apologise after a high-stakes error, coupled with legacy resentment from an organisational restructure. Through pre-mediation conversations, coaching and structured dialogue, both individuals reached new understanding — not through forced reconciliation, but through clarity, impact-awareness and mutual commitment.
“Often, it’s not the word sorry that’s missing,” Caroline noted, “but the ability to hear and be heard.”
- Diversity, Identity and Feedback
In another case, a minority background employee had filed a grievance, believing they were being excluded from promotions and disrespected by a colleague of a different minority group. The situation had developed a high emotional charge. The mediation revealed how identity, intent, and cultural nuance had shaped perceptions. What emerged was a raw but constructive conversation — and ultimately, a new professional contract “contract” supported by their line manager.
- Leadership, Legacy and Redemption
Perhaps the most striking example was that of a senior banking leader accused of harassment and facing dismissal. The CEO, uncomfortable with the binary choice of firing or being perceived as ignoring, called in Caroline to explore another way. Through 360 feedback, coaching, team facilitation and a deeply personal process of reflection, the individual was able to acknowledge the impact of their behaviour and make tangible changes. The result? Not only was the relationship salvaged, but the team became a flagship for cultural transformation.
“Change doesn’t have to be perfect to be meaningful,” said Caroline. “Sometimes, sufficient change is enough to rebuild trust.”
The Legal Backbone
David reinforced that requesting mediation is not only ethical — it is entirely legally sound. Employers can seek participation in mediation as a reasonable management instruction, and refusal to engage in it may, in some circumstances, impact future legal proceedings especially where the employer can only retain both parties if they can find a way to work together again.
“No one wins in a formal grievance process — not really,” David remarked. “You might get a legal resolution, but much less likely a real one. But in mediation, you stand a real formal chance of repair.”
Building a Resolution Culture
A central theme throughout the discussion was that mediation isn’t just a reactive tool — it’s part of a wider cultural shift. For that to happen, leaders must be trained in conflict capability. Teams must feel psychological safety. Organisations must value dialogue over documentation and pragmatism over process.
“My hope,” Caroline concluded, “is that one day we won’t need mediators — because our managers will have the skills, confidence and empathy to resolve conflict early and well.”
Final Reflections
At Sheridan Worldwide, we believe mediation should no longer be viewed as an afterthought. It should be embedded into the way organisations function — a core part of leadership, learning and culture-building.
We are grateful to Winmark for hosting this important conversation, and to the participants who brought insight, curiosity and challenge to the discussion.
If you’d like to learn more about how Sheridan Worldwide supports organisations in developing resolution cultures — from mediation and conflict coaching to leadership development and inclusion strategy — please get in touch.
