Navigating Employee Conflict

People afraid of disagreeing on LinkedIn (you should not be) Unlike other platforms; LinkedIn is directly connected to your career. So people do self-censorship. Disagreement on LinkedIn can be valuable. When people disagree with my thoughts. I LOVE IT. They; • They are genuine • Add a new perspective • Carefully read my thoughts • Invite people to the conversation • Teach me something I don't know But only if you do it right. Here are my tips: 1. Disagree politely 2. Explain why you disagree clearly 3. Ask a thought-provoking question 4. Do not fake it, be genuine. 5. Be mindful of your tone. Be open to new thoughts. Disagree when you really disagree. This is not being negative or toxic. This is genuine. Do you disagree openly on LinkedIn?

A number of you have reached out to me directly or tagged me in posts seeking advice about managing online toxicity. After nearly three years building this LinkedIn community - and a lifetime deeply engaged online - I’ve learned a lot about navigating negativity and misinformation, especially over the past two months as the spotlight intensified. First, much of the toxicity people encounter has little to do with them personally. Negativity often reflects others’ biases or experiences - whether about identity, workplace dynamics, or societal issues - and their words are filtered through personal baggage. This means their judgment of you often says more about them than about you. People also frequently jump to conclusions without all the information. While there’s valid criticism of media and bias - and I agree these topics are worth exploring - established media often follows rigorous fact-checking standards, unlike many online narratives. I’ve experienced situations where people confidently claimed “facts” about me that I knew were entirely untrue. It’s tempting to debate or set the record straight, but you’ll rarely change someone’s mind, especially when their platform reinforces their sense of rightness. This is why I focus on making one clear, factual correction when necessary. Those who want to believe the truth will; those who don’t, won’t. Beyond that, engaging further often proves futile. More concerning than misinformation are real threats, which can be deeply unsettling. My approach is to determine if threats are genuine or empty. While some cases are serious and heartbreaking, for me, once I confirmed the threats weren’t real, I let them go entirely. I also found these situations don’t last long - unless you retaliate or engage, which often fuels more content. Typically, if you stay out of it, the cycle fades within a week as people move on to another target. Some creators claim they don’t make personal attacks against others, and sometimes that is true, but leaders set the tone for their communities. What they permit sends powerful signals. Allowing harmful dynamics to thrive makes it hard to claim innocence when things escalate. Leaders must recognize the influence they wield and take responsibility for it Through it all, I stay grounded by focusing on those who know me and take the time to seek the truth, even when they don't agree with me or even like me. I just want to know their views aren't grounded in falsehoods. Their voices matter most. Constructive feedback, grounded in facts, even when difficult to hear, helps me grow. At the same time, I filter out noise driven by false information or unrelated agendas. Living with integrity means accepting valid criticism while blocking out baseless negativity. It’s not easy, but it’s essential in today’s loud world. The truth resonates with those who seek it. Let’s support one another in building stronger, kinder communities. You can manage this too - it just takes practice.

We’ve all seen them lurking in our LinkedIn comments. “Interesting. But you’re wrong. You have no idea what you’re talking about” Comments like this come in the guise of ‘feedback’. But the condescending tone is obvious. However, this isn’t a LinkedIn issue. It's a human issue. When we’re triggered, engaging in reactive behaviour is easily done. We do it to soothe our internal chaos. But your words tell people a story about you and your inner state. The question is: Is it a good story? So, how do WE handle such moments when they appear? Well for a start, if you feel triggered, that's awesome. See this trigger as a mirror and an opportunity for internal growth. Then engage in conscious communication. A while back on my YT channel, I broke down how Steve Jobs handled a similar situation back in the day. He was presented with a question in the audience by someone quite clearly out to humiliate him. Jobs could have snapped and retaliated. Instead, he paused and took his time. He then used that imperfect moment as a chance for connection. What happened next was dope. He acknowledged part of the criticism, neutralised the tension, and turned it into a teaching moment about vision and resilience. Fight. Flight or Freeze aren't the only options available. It’s possible to calm the nervous system and communicate with intention. So, next time you face a passive-aggressive comment during any presentation, meeting or conversation, remember this. It's a gift. Receive it, lean into the discomfort and own your truth without tearing others down. Do this right, and growth will find you. P.S. Link to my full video breakdown of Steve Jobs' communication masterclass in the comments (ungated).

Some companies always seem to be in “HR crisis mode.” ➡️ One complaint after another. ➡️ A constant stream of employee conflicts. ➡️ And leadership is wondering why HR can’t fix it. The real problem usually isn’t HR. It’s the culture. 𝗟𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝗯𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘁. Culture shapes how employees feel, act, and respond. When culture is off, even small issues turn into big ones. Here’s what that looks like in real life: ▶️ 𝗟𝗼𝘄 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 When leaders don’t share information, EEs fill in the blanks. Rumors start. Assumptions grow. And suddenly, HR is managing “what people heard” instead of what actually happened. ▶️ 𝗨𝗻𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 Favoritism, cliques, or pay gaps for similar roles? That’s a fast track to disengagement and claims of bias. Once trust erodes, it’s hard to get it back. ▶️ 𝗣𝗼𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 When feedback only flows one way (usually top-down), employees stop speaking up. Then leadership is blindsided when turnover spikes or exit interviews reveal hidden problems. ▶️ 𝗧𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 Some workplaces punish mistakes so harshly that employees hide them instead of learning from them. That’s how compliance issues slip through the cracks. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘴: You can’t train your way out of a bad culture. You can only build your way out of it. The HR teams that thrive know this. They don’t just react to employee relations issues. They study the culture that created them. So before the next “problem employee” meeting, ask: What in the culture made this possible? That’s where real HR strategy begins. 𝙄𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙛𝙞𝙭 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙤𝙧𝙜𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙣𝙤𝙬, 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙞𝙩 𝙗𝙚? ♻️ I appreciate 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 repost. 𝗪𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗛𝗥 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀? Click the "𝗩𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗺𝘆 𝗡𝗲𝘄𝘀𝗹𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿" link below my name for weekly tips to elevate your career! Adams HR Consulting Stephanie Adams, SPHR #HRCulture #EmployeeRelations #PeopleStrategy

RESPECT AT WORK | While we often think about workplace misconduct as an individual or interpersonal issue, research shows that broader environmental factors are the main drivers. Workplace misconduct is the result of a complex interplay between various individual factors, organisational aspects, and broader environmental influences. Stressful work conditions create hazardous workplace environments. Risks for bullying and harassment include excessive workloads, time pressures, low job control and autonomy, low supervisor support, organisational change, role conflict, job insecurity, employee conflict, poor training, lack of resources, unreasonable performance measures, and poorly defined delegation. Preventing workplace misconduct requires that leaders are alert to risks. Leaders should regularly reflect on job demands, consult with staff on wellbeing and safety, and take action to mitigate and buffer identified work stressors. Learn more about the risk factors for workplace misconduct here: https://lnkd.in/gzT_Uiuj, our evidence/based approach to Respect at Work training here: https://lnkd.in/gfTQNKRM, our Respect at Work program here: https://lnkd.in/gWFaSCGy and trauma-informed grievance management here: https://lnkd.in/gf_R76-e

They paid £175,000 to learn a lesson I already teach... In Miller v University of Reading, a long-serving employee was made redundant. The scoring process was vague, there was no chance to challenge it and a dismissal letter had already been written before any meaningful consultation took place. The tribunal called the process “procedurally and substantively unfair” - here's what went wrong: ❌ Selection criteria weren’t clearly explained or evidence-based ❌ Consultation was rushed and superficial ❌ Leaders were poorly prepared and inconsistent ❌ No real support was offered to the individual ❌ The process was led by fear, not integrity The result? > £175,000+ in compensation > Additional legal fees and court time > Reputational damage internally and externally > Leadership credibility took a hit > Internal trust eroded - quiet quitting, disengagement, and fear You can have a solid business case and still fail in the execution. You can follow a process on paper and still end up in tribunal. When people are treated like a risk to manage, not humans to support - everyone loses. That's why I built a framework to support organisations navigating redundancies with clarity, care, and execution. This approach helps you: ✅ Avoid legal and reputational risk ✅ Protect your leadership and company culture ✅ Create a process that is fair, human, and grounded in integrity - for everyone involved ✅ Transition impacted employees with integrity Whether you're a founder, COO, or People leader, we help you get it right because the way you transition people is your culture. It's the moment your values and leadership are truly tested. If you're planning a restructure, or even considering one, make it human-first. Let's Go 🔥

Your employer’s investigation isn’t designed to protect you. It’s designed to protect them. Let me explain what that really means—and what you need to do to protect yourself. When employees report discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, they often expect accountability. But here’s the truth: Most oppressive employers are not going to substantiate your claims of unlawful treatment. Not because the evidence isn’t there— But because admitting the truth puts them at risk. They know that if your complaint is validated, it could cost them: • Legal liability • Reputational harm • Damages for emotional and psychological distress • Financial payouts So what do they do instead? 🚩 They gaslight you 🚩 They create a different narrative 🚩 They launch a surface-level “investigation” 🚩 And they usually conclude: “We were unable to substantiate the claim” Here’s the nuance I want you to understand: Sometimes the employer will admit that someone’s behavior wasn’t “aligned with company values.” They may even "slap them on the wrist." But what they won’t do is label it as unlawful. Why? Because acknowledging that you were discriminated against or harassed means admitting that they allowed it to happen. And that exposes the company to real legal risk. So they frame it as an individual issue—not a systemic or legal one. They protect themselves, not the person harmed. Here’s what you need to do instead: ✉️ Document every incident in writing ✍️ Send emails to HR or management 📌 Be specific and identify the type of unlawful treatment (race-based, gender-based, retaliation, etc.) 🗂️ Retain copies—always Don’t rely on the employer’s internal process to validate your experience. Build your own record. Protect your truth. #WorkplaceJustice #EmploymentLaw #DiscriminationAtWork #KnowYourRights #EmployeeRights #employmentlawyer #HostileWorkEnvironment #HRCompliance #ToxicWorkplace #WorkplaceAccountability #LegalTips

Documentation wins cases. Case in point: Carroll v. IDEMIA. Charles Carroll worked as a high-ranking exec at IDEMIA, the company behind TSA PreCheck. He ran a new initiative called "Trusted Fan" and was involved in renewing a major TSA contract. He was also in his 60s and had recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer. A year after disclosing his diagnosis, and after delivering the TSA contract renewal, he was fired. The company said it was due to performance issues: lack of leadership, mishandling the Trusted Fan rollout, and frustrations around the contract renewal process.  The Sixth Circuit upheld summary judgment for the employer across the board, including on Carroll's disability and age discrimination. Why? One word: documentation. The company: 🗒️ Clearly documented its concerns about Carroll’s performance over time 🗒️ Provided contemporaneous notes and emails identifying leadership issues 🗒️ Had consistent internal messaging about why he was being terminated 🗒️ Never wavered—before or after the lawsuit—in citing performance, not protected characteristics, as the reason for his termination Even though Carroll pointed to his age and cancer diagnosis, he couldn't overcome the employer's paper trail. The court's key takeaway? A well-documented and consistently applied performance-based termination is a strong defense—sometimes an unassailable one. Here are the actionable lessons to takeaway from this case. 📌 Don’t wait until litigation to start building your case.  📌 If someone is underperforming, say it clearly, document it thoroughly, and follow up.  📌 When you terminate someone, make sure the “why” is known internally—and stays consistent.  📌 “At-will” doesn’t mean “at-random.” Your file should always tell the story. If you want to avoid ending up in court in the first place or put yourself in the best position to defend if you end up their, make contemporaneous documentation part of your company's culture. Performance reviews, coaching notes, follow-up emails—these things aren't just HR busywork. They're lawsuit insurance.

An employer recently learned the hard way that a proper response to an employee's complaint of harassment involves more than simply investigating it. Keep reading, and I'll explain why. Last night, I read a recent decision from a Pennsylvania federal judge. The plaintiff, an Asian American, testified at his deposition that his supervisor often cornered him when they were alone and insulted him by saying, "Your kind of people are always causing problems," "Your kind of people are the reason we have to wear these masks," "I own your ass," and "Your ass is grass, and I'm the lawnmower." Other times, the supervisor unfairly accused him of taking too long to do a job, not finishing jobs, trying to sabotage a work van, and repeatedly threatened to fire him. The plaintiff complained to Human Resources, and HR did investigate, speaking with the plaintiff, the supervisor, and a few others. During the investigation, HR corroborated the plaintiff's testimony regarding his supervisor's targeting, demeaning, and insulting treatment. Yet, despite this and other facts discerned in the investigation that made it appear that the plaintiff's complaint had merit, neither HR nor anyone else took any action on the plaintiff's complaint beyond this investigation. A few months later, the plaintiff filed a second complaint with HR, claiming that his supervisor had attempted to retaliate against him for filing the first complaint. This time, HR didn't investigate at all. Instead, HR didn't think the second complaint warranted an investigation because the defendant's policies forbade retaliation, and HR would do its best to ensure no retaliation. Within about a week, the defendant terminated the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had subjected him to a hostile work environment and ultimately terminated him in retaliation for filing complaints of racial discrimination. To prevail on a hostile work environment claim, an employer must often show that after it became aware of the discrimination/harassment, it took prompt and appropriate corrective action. Here, the plaintiff complained twice, but the defendant investigated once and never disciplined or even counseled the alleged harasser. On the retaliation claim, the defendant argued that it fired the plaintiff because of a profanity-laced tirade he directed at another manager shortly after complaining to HR for the second time. No one would dispute that the defendant had the right to do this. However, the plaintiff denied everything. And, at summary judgment, a judge must view the evidence in light of the non-moving party. Since the defendant moved for summary judgment and the court can't judge credibility, it had to decide all disputed facts in favor of the plaintiff. That, plus the one-week gap between the plaintiff's second HR complaint and his termination, creates a strong inference of retaliation and defeats summary judgment. #TheEmployerHandbook #employmentlaw #humanresources

This case highlights important lessons for employers & HR professionals regarding probation, termination procedures & employee rights. The Industrial Court ruled in favor of the employee due to the employer’s failure to follow proper procedures, resulting in financial penalties. 1.Probation Must Be Clearly Managed: Manage probation periods with formal confirmation or termination. Employers must clearly confirm, extend, or terminate probation within the set period to avoid legal disputes. 2.Fair Procedure is Crucial in Termination: The employee was dismissed without a Show Cause Letter or DI, which denied him the opportunity to defend himself. Employers must follow proper disciplinary procedures, including (1)Issuing a Show Cause Letter, (2)Conducting a DI to allow fair hearing (if necessary), (3)Exercising PIP for performance related issues. Failure to do so can make the dismissal unlawful. 3.Misconduct Allegations Must Be Proven: The employer claimed the employee was involved in extortion & misconduct, but could not provide evidence to support these claims. The court ruled that the dismissal was unjustified. Employers must ensure that all allegations are backed by strong evidence such as (1)Emails, reports, or documented complaints. (2)Witness statements. (3)Clear company policies supporting disciplinary actions. 4.Wrongful Dismissal Can Be Costly: Since the dismissal was without just cause, the court ordered the employer to pay the employee RM124,183.54 in back wages and compensation. Wrongful termination can lead to (1)Financial losses due to legal claims, (2)Damage to employer reputation & employee trust. 5.HR Must Ensure Compliance: HR plays a critical role in ensuring proper employment practices. This includes (1)Monitoring probation periods & employment contracts, (2)Implementing structured disciplinary procedures for fairness, (3)Providing legal guidance to prevent wrongful dismissals. This case is a reminder for employers to follow proper procedures when terminating employees.