Never heard of restorative conflict resolution? Catch up quick

The worst part of interpersonal conflicts might be that you don’t necessarily get to just walk away when things are over. Think back to squbbles at school: even if the other kid was reprimanded (satisfying!), you were still stuck there in the same classroom (awkward…). The damage to your relationship remains, meaning it’s never really “over.” That’s one of the reasons many schools have embraced restorative conflict resolution practices – and workplace leaders are taking note. 

Employers are increasingly interested in restoring harmony after a conflict rather than disciplining employees and calling it a day. To give you an idea of what’s at stake, 2021 data from the UK showed that nearly half a million employees resigned that year due to conflicts. A full 300,000 were fired and 874,000 took sick days for the same reason. Clearly, humans and businesses are getting burned.

Restorative practices focus on addressing harm and repairing relationships, rather than punitive measures. That’s not to say it’s an accountability-free zone. But instead of an authority figure meting out punishment, the individuals involved talk it through, ideally guided by a facilitator. 

The emphasis is on getting each party to see the other’s perspective, and if there was an explicit offender, getting them to understand the impact they’ve had. From there, the parties work together to figure out a solution. For the offender, this means helping to decide how they’ll take responsibility for the harm they’ve caused.

Although the restorative resolution process should be guided by a trained facilitator, leaders and individual contributors alike can incorporate several of the practices even without training. 

The difference restorative practices can make

The biggest potential benefit for employers is reduced turnover. According to the UK study referenced above, employee resignations related to conflict take a £15 billion toll annually, between recruitment costs and lost productivity. 

Meanwhile, research from Columbia University found that companies with toxic cultures experience turnover rates near 50%. The same study showed companies with healthy cultures have turnover rates closer to 15%. 

While the Columbia study doesn’t cite interpersonal conflict specifically, it stands to reason that conflict pops up more frequently in toxic workplaces vs. healthy ones. So the question around restorative practices is really two-fold: how do they reduce conflict-related turnover, and how do they foster the kind of culture where conflict is less frequent in the first place?

First, the aggrieved party gets a chance to air their concerns. This means the company has a chance to address those concerns directly, or otherwise provide some kind of closure. Second, let’s say there was an explicit wrong-doer – for example, someone who makes dirisive comments towards teammates, creating a hostile environment. They are treated with dignity, making them less likely to leave the company or become disengaged. Last, contributing to the solution gives everyone involved a sense of ownership and increases their commitment to seeing it through, as well as a sense of agency in decisions that affect their work. 

In short, employees are more likely to thrive when they feel both empowered and accountable. Adopting restorative practices contributes to both. 

Restorative conflict resolution, step-by-step

Trained practitioners and facilitators tend to have their own variations, or will adapt the process to fit a specific situation. But it looks roughly like this: 

1. One party, usually the person who was harmed, requests a special kind of meeting called a restorative circle. 
2. Both parties meet separately with a neutral facilitator beforehand to prepare for the discussion. They’ll practice expressing their perspective with compassion and listening with empathy, as well as go over ground rules for the circle, like ensuring confidentiality and staying away from personal attacks. 
3. All parties meet for the restorative circle. This should include the people directly involved, and can optionally include people who aren’t involved directly, but are affected indirectly. The facilitator focuses on reaching a shared understanding; encouraging curiosity instead of defensiveness; and uncovering the root cause of the conflict, which will inform the solution. By the end of the circle discussion, the group should reach a consensus on how to repair the harm done and how to avoid similar conflicts in the future. 
4. In rare cases, the follow-up phase may involve some form of reparations by the offender. Generally, however, the conflict is less black-and-white. As such, this stage is primarily about making sure everyone is abiding by the agreements made in the circle discussion. 

Nothing is perfect (or, the downsides to restorative practices)

You’ve probably noticed that this is a fairly time-intensive process. Yes: it involves meetings about meetings. (The horror!)

The other downside is that to do this right, you really need an experienced facilitator. When schools adopt restorative practices, the most common reason it fails or falters is that teachers are thrown into it with little to no training. The schools that lean on counselors and other administrative staff are the ones who succeed. 

That’s not to say that you’ve wasted your time reading this if you don’t have access to a trained facilitator. There are elements of restorative conflict resolution that anyone can adopt. 

Informal restorative practices for prevention and culture-building

In addition to the formal process described above, there are a number of informal practices that can be woven into day-to-day work life as a way to foster a culture of open communication, mutual respect, appreciation, and accountability. The goal here is to strengthen workplace relationships in order to prevent harm and conflict in the first place. 

• Raise issues early and openly, before they grow into bona fide problems. 
• Assume positive intent. (Or, as Atlassian’s unofficial sixth company value would have it, “seek first to understand.”) Comments, actions, or behaviors that rub you the wrong way might seem totally reasonable when you have the full context. 
• When you are seeking to understand, use low-judgement language. “Why did you do that?” sounds accusatory. In contrast, “What prompted you to do that?” or even gentler, “What made that seem like the right thing to do?” establishes a vibe of curiosity, while still getting to the heart of the matter. 
• If a discussion gets heated, pause for a moment and remind everyone (including yourself!) not to let personal attacks slip in. Make it about the work. 
• Treat failures as system failures. Acknowledge that whatever an individual did, there were decisions and actions on the part of others that created the conditions in which that mistake could be made. There’s plenty of room for accountability in a blame-free culture, but taking the scapegoating out improves psychological safety, making it easier for people to admit and rectify mistakes instead of denying and digging their heels in. 
• As much as is practical, bring people together within and across teams. Atlassian’s research has found that in-person gatherings go a long way toward building bonds, while virtual gatherings work well for maintaining them. 

Furthermore, delegating decisions down to the lowest level possible – i.e., letting the person actually doing the work make the decisions about that work – boosts their confidence, sense of ownership, and engagement in their work. Recognizing individual achievements, even a simple “Way to go, Rochelle!” in the team’s chat channel, also increases engagement. 

Whether formal or informal, restorative practices are all about helping the organization, and the people who compose it, thrive.