Whatever Happened to Having a Quiet Word? Why ACAS Wants Us to Resolve More Workplace Problems Informally

There is a phrase I use quite regularly when talking to employers about relatively minor workplace problems: whatever happened to having a quiet word?

I don’t mean that flippantly. There are, of course, situations where an employer absolutely needs to follow a formal procedure. Serious misconduct needs to be investigated properly, significant performance concerns may require a formal capability process, and some employee complaints are far too serious to be dealt with through an informal chat.

However, not every problem at work needs to begin with a letter inviting somebody to a formal meeting.

Sometimes a conversation really is the best place to start.

That isn’t a particularly revolutionary idea, but, interestingly, ACAS is now putting considerably greater emphasis on it. A proposed new Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures was published for consultation at the end of July and, although it is not yet in force, one of the clearest messages running through the draft is that employers and employees should try to resolve concerns early and informally wherever it is appropriate to do so.

For me, this is a welcome development because I think somewhere along the way we have perhaps become a little too frightened of simply talking to one another.

When did every problem become a “process”?

I completely understand why employers are cautious. We have spent years telling businesses that they need to follow fair procedures, investigate properly, keep records, and ensure employees have an opportunity to put forward their side of the story.

All of that remains important.

But I do sometimes see relatively small workplace concerns escalate unnecessarily because everybody becomes focused on the process rather than the problem.

Imagine, for example, that an employee has been arriving ten or fifteen minutes late several times over the last few weeks. The manager is understandably frustrated because somebody else has to cover until they arrive.

Does that automatically need to become a disciplinary matter?

Probably not.

The first conversation might simply be: “I’ve noticed you’ve been late several times recently, and it is beginning to cause us a problem. Is there a reason for it?”

That conversation might establish that there is a perfectly understandable explanation. Perhaps childcare arrangements have temporarily changed, public transport has become unreliable, or there is something happening at home that the manager knew nothing about. It may even reveal a health issue or disability that the employer needs to understand.

Equally, there might be no particular explanation, and the employee simply needs reminding that they are expected to be at work on time.

Either way, you have started with a conversation rather than a confrontation.

Informal does not mean ignoring the problem

I think this is where employers can sometimes become uncomfortable with the idea of dealing with something informally.

There can be a perception that if we don’t start a formal process, we aren’t really managing the employee. I don’t agree.

An informal conversation can still be very clear.

You can explain what the problem is, why it matters and what needs to change. You can listen to the employee’s explanation, agree on what is expected going forward and make it clear that if the problem continues, it may need to be dealt with more formally.

That is still management.

In fact, I would argue that good managers should be having these conversations regularly. If employees only ever hear that something is wrong when they receive an invitation to a formal meeting, we have probably missed an opportunity somewhere along the way.

The proposed ACAS Code reflects this approach. It talks about employers raising concerns privately, explaining what the concern is and listening to what the employee has to say. Depending upon what emerges from that conversation, the employer might agree on improvements, consider additional support or training, look at reasonable adjustments or simply agree to review the situation after a period of time.

That feels much closer to how good employee relations should work in practice.

Think about the difference a conversation can make

Let’s take another everyday example.

Perhaps an employee who has always been reliable has started making mistakes. Their manager becomes increasingly frustrated and eventually concludes that they are simply not concentrating properly.

One option is to begin a formal performance process.

But what happens if, during the first meeting, the employee explains that they haven’t slept properly for weeks because they are caring for a seriously ill parent?

Or perhaps they explain that a new system has been introduced and, although everybody else seems to understand it, they are struggling and have been too embarrassed to say anything.

Maybe their eyesight has deteriorated, and they are having difficulty reading information on screen. Perhaps there is a health condition affecting their concentration.

Or perhaps none of those things applies, and the employee simply hasn’t been taking enough care.

The point is that you don’t know until you ask.

A relatively simple conversation gives the employer an opportunity to understand what is actually happening and decide what response is appropriate. It might be some additional training, a temporary adjustment, clearer expectations or simply a reminder about standards.

If that resolves the problem, everybody wins.

The same applies when employees have concerns.

This isn’t only about employers managing conduct or performance.

The proposed Code also encourages employees to raise their concerns informally where appropriate, rather than automatically moving into a formal grievance procedure.

Again, there will be situations where a formal grievance is entirely appropriate. Allegations of discrimination, harassment, bullying or other serious wrongdoing may need proper investigation, and nobody should feel pressured into dealing informally with something they believe requires formal action.

But there are plenty of workplace disagreements that start relatively small.

A manager makes a comment that an employee takes the wrong way. Two colleagues disagree about who was responsible for completing a task. Somebody feels that they have been left out of a meeting. An employee thinks their manager has spoken to them unfairly.

If nobody talks about it, the frustration grows.

The employee goes home and thinks about it. They talk to their partner. They speak to colleagues. The following day something else happens, and suddenly it becomes further evidence of a much bigger problem.

A few weeks later, the employer receives a five-page grievance detailing a series of incidents that might have been resolved very differently if somebody had felt able to say at the time, “Can we have a chat? I wasn’t very happy about what happened yesterday.”

Of course, that won’t resolve every workplace dispute, but I have seen enough employee relations issues over the years to know that unresolved misunderstandings have an extraordinary ability to grow.

Don’t confuse informal with undocumented.

There is another misconception I would like to dispel.

Dealing with something informally doesn’t necessarily mean that there should be absolutely no record of the conversation.

You don’t need to turn every management conversation into a formal letter or produce three pages of meeting notes, but if you have spoken to an employee about a concern and agreed what needs to happen next, there is nothing wrong with making a sensible note of that conversation.

In some circumstances, I would actively encourage it.

It might simply record that you spoke to the employee about their timekeeping, they explained what had been happening, you agreed that they would arrive by their contractual start time going forward, and you would review things in a couple of weeks.

That isn’t a formal warning and shouldn’t subsequently be presented as though it was one. It is simply a record of a management conversation.

That record can actually be helpful to both sides because there is much less scope for disagreement later about what was discussed or agreed.

But there is a line

For all my enthusiasm about having a quiet word, there is an important caveat.

Informal resolution should never become a way of avoiding a proper procedure when one is genuinely needed.

If an employee is accused of something serious, don’t carry out an informal conversation which effectively becomes a disciplinary hearing without giving them the protections of the proper process.

Similarly, if somebody raises a serious complaint and wants it dealt with formally, don’t simply tell them that everyone should sit down together and sort it out.

There are also circumstances where the nature of the allegation means that an informal approach would be completely inappropriate.

The skill is recognising the difference.

Ask yourself what you are actually trying to achieve. Are you trying to correct a relatively minor problem before it becomes a bigger one, or are you dealing with something serious enough that formal action may be required?

If it is the former, conversation may well be the better starting point.

What if the informal approach doesn’t work?

Then you move on.

This is another reason employers shouldn’t be afraid of trying informally first. You haven’t lost the ability to use your formal procedure simply because you initially tried to resolve the problem through conversation.

If you have explained that an employee’s timekeeping needs to improve and it doesn’t, you can consider formal action.

If you have provided additional training because somebody was struggling with part of their role and their performance still doesn’t improve, a formal capability process may become appropriate.

If two employees have tried to resolve a disagreement informally and the problem continues, you may need to consider a more structured approach.

Trying to resolve something informally doesn’t commit you to remaining informal forever.

What it does demonstrate is that you tried to resolve the problem at the lowest appropriate level before escalating matters.

Why is ACAS focusing on this now?

There is a very practical reason behind some of this.

Workplace conflict is expensive.

ACAS estimates that formal disciplinary and grievance procedures are costing UK employers around £2.36 billion a year. That is before we even start thinking about the management time, disruption, sickness absence, damaged working relationships and sheer emotional energy that workplace disputes can consume.

For an SME, that can be particularly significant.

If you have five employees and two of them are involved in a grievance against one another, that isn’t simply an HR issue happening somewhere in the background. It can affect a substantial proportion of your workforce.

Managers get pulled into meetings. Statements have to be taken. Emails need reviewing. Someone needs to investigate. Someone else may need to hear the grievance and, potentially, another person may be needed for an appeal.

Meanwhile, everybody still has their day job to do.

If an appropriate conversation two weeks earlier could have prevented that situation from developing, it is difficult to argue against having it.

So, should we forget about procedures?

Absolutely not.

Policies and procedures remain important, and the ACAS Code remains something employers need to take seriously. If matters ultimately reach an Employment Tribunal, the way in which an employer has handled a disciplinary or grievance process can be extremely important.

But good HR shouldn’t simply be about knowing which procedure to start.

Sometimes it is about knowing when not to start one.

The proposed new Code feels to me like a useful reminder that employee relations should not begin with paperwork. They should begin with people talking to one another.

Managers need the confidence to have slightly uncomfortable conversations before they become very uncomfortable conversations. Employees need to feel able to raise a concern without believing that their only option is to submit a formal grievance. And employers need to recognise that dealing with something informally doesn’t mean they are failing to manage it properly.

Quite often, it means exactly the opposite.

My advice to employers

If something isn’t quite right, don’t ignore it and hope it goes away. In my experience, workplace problems rarely improve simply because nobody mentions them.

But equally, don’t assume that every concern requires a formal process.

Have the conversation. Explain what you have noticed. Listen to what the employee has to say. Ask questions before reaching conclusions and agree on what needs to happen next. If appropriate, make a brief note of what you have discussed and then review whether things improve.

If they do, you may have resolved the problem quickly, fairly and with the working relationship intact.

If they don’t, you can still take the next step.

And perhaps that is the real message behind the direction ACAS is taking. Formal procedures will always have an important place in managing people, but they shouldn’t necessarily be our first port of call.

Sometimes good HR really does start with having a quiet word.

At the time of writing, ACAS’s proposed new Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures is still in draft and is subject to consultation. We will, of course, keep our clients updated when the final Code is published.

If you have an employee issue developing and you are unsure whether it is something you should deal with informally or whether you need to start a formal process, please speak to us. Quite often, getting advice at the beginning can help you deal with the issue proportionately and prevent a relatively small concern from becoming a much bigger one.