Grievances within a workplace are not always about formal emails and legal notices. More often than not, they start with “small” actions that can be easy to miss but can escalate to major issues within the organisation.
Early signs of grievances are often informal, emotional, and subtle, and yet incredibly nuanced. These smaller signs might make even the employees wonder about the validity of their feelings. However, that does not lessen their overall impact.
When small signs often escalate into bigger grievances, it’s time to take a step back and reassess how the company’s systems handle various conflicts and how willing they are to take risks.
This is where the main debate between reactive and proactive grievance management takes shape. The former uses fewer resources and stops employees from walking on eggshells. In contrast, the proactive approach can prevent major issues before they even begin to take shape.
What Reactive Grievance Management Looks Like
Reactive grievance management is the term used for the issue address system that only acts after certain events have occurred, including
- A written complaint is filed
- Legal counsel gets involved
- Leadership intervenes
Such a type of grievance management can often be identified by its constant firefighting mode, trying to de-escalate an already escalated situation. Communication in such systems is often defensive among most parties.
Due to the urgency with which such systems always operate, the focus is often on closure rather than resolution. Despite how tense this particular type of conflict resolution is, it is also the most common place in countries.
The continued usage of reactive grievance management can be attributed to factors such as:
- The “Visible” ROI: If issues are only addressed after official complaints are filed or actions are taken, it is easy to measure the metrics of these actions, along with their effectiveness.
- Resource & Bandwidth Constraints: When a team is stretched thin, with HR already handling a multitude of issues, it can be hard to pay attention to evolving grievances until they are no longer being actively voiced.
- Fear of “Making Mountains out of Molehills”: Many companies fear that opening the grievance management system to even the smallest issues might create conflicts where none might have existed had some time passed.
The Hidden Costs of Being Reactive
When companies focus only on “bigger” issues, ignoring minor conflicts, they expose themselves to risks that, over time, can cause greater harm. This includes:
- Loss of employee trust: Failing to address minor issues can often leave employees feeling unheard and undervalued. They might lose trust in the grievance system and in leadership, feeling that concerns they consider valid are being swept aside without due consideration.
- Legal and public escalation: If an employee feels they have exhausted all informal avenues but are still not being heard, they may turn to options such as filing a POSH complaint, issuing a labour notice, or taking to social media. The reasons behind these major legal steps often stem from smaller actions the company might have overlooked.
- Manager and HR burnout: When every issue becomes a major one, both management and HR feel burned out. Rather than actively working toward a solution, each grievance is handled as a task to be completed.
- “Why didn’t anyone tell us earlier?” paradox: Even in a reactive grievance management process, it is easy to track the small steps that lead to big escalations. Often, management and HR feel confused about why the employee did not approach them earlier, not realising that the existing system would likely have led to no resolution at an earlier stage.
What Proactive Grievance Management Actually Means
In proactive grievance management, the management and HR shift from simple complaint handling to issue sensing. A major focus is on listening to every concern with an open mind and evaluating its possible future impact.
Some of the ways in which the company can ease the proactive grievance management process include:
- Low-friction channels: Creating multiple,easy-to-navigate channels for raising concerns can help employees feel seen and heard. While not every complaint may carry the same weight, they should all be given due consideration.
- Normalise feedback: Facilitate anonymous feedback channels that ease employees’ concerns about potential repercussions. Such channels reduce the fear of raising an issue and being blacklisted socially for it.
- Change in HR roles: For proactive resolutions, HR’s role needs to shift from arbitrator to early-warning system. One can even learn from past instances to keep an eye on “minor” conflicts that can escalate into major grievances.
- Regular pulse surveys: Sending the same set of questions to employees at regular intervals can serve as a clear call to action. They also remind employees, when they might be feeling stuck, that they do have a course of action to follow.
- Structured skip-level conversations: Skip-level conversations involve an employee and their direct supervisor’s manager, who isn’t present. These conversations give employees a way to voice concerns about their manager to someone who can indeed do something about it.
- Manager check-ins beyond performance: Regular check-ins from team leaders on non-work-related matters help employees feel valued and let them share their concerns when they feel comfortable.
Building a Proactive Grievance Framework
Early interventions during rising conflicts can lead to reduced attrition, POSH complaints, and work stress. It helps ensure employees’ psychological safety.
Even if a conflict resolution process in this type of framework may not involve legal processes, it is always good practice to document the details and the process maturity as a risk mitigation measure. Ultimately, though, compliance should be an outcome rather than the main goal.
An actionable proactive grievance framework should always have:
- Clear escalation pathways, both formal and informal
- Defined response timelines, even for “non-complaints” and “minor issues”
- Consistent communication and follow-ups until resolution and beyond
- Balanced confidentiality with action to create a safe but effective space
- Effectiveness beyond case closure that leaves an impact.
Early Warning Signs to Look For
Proactive grievance management relies heavily on observation and situational awareness. It remains imperative for HR and management to watch out for signs, but not to react prematurely.
Often, these signs are dismissed as “minor issues” as their impact on daily operations and conversations might seem negligible. However, the effects build until they reach the breaking point.
Behavioural and Cultural Signals
Small changes in an employee’s behaviour or a team’s dynamics are often red flags that can indicate potential future conflict. These signs, on their own, may not seem serious, but can be rooted in cultural issues.
- Sudden disengagement or silence: If an employee suddenly becomes disengaged or silent at work, HR should check in with them empathetically. The reasons behind this might be personal, but it never hurts to let employees know that the company cares about them and is willing to listen to their concerns.
- Repeated attrition in a specific team: When employees keep joining and leaving a particular team, investigate the issue. Are the required skills really so niche, or is there a troubling dynamic that compels employees to leave the team, if not the company itself?
- Offhand comments, jokes, or cynicism: Most personal conflicts between two team members often evolve from comments that are dismissed as jokes. Emphasise to employees that if they feel uncomfortable with any comment or action, regardless of the intention, they should not hesitate to voice their concerns.
Operational Signals
There are often early signs of rising conflict when a company’s metrics change. Company-wide patterns can indicate a systematic issue rather than an individual one. These metrics might not always be objective, but they can say a lot about the existing workplace culture.
- Spike in sick leave or transfers: When employees become increasingly unwilling to be at work or at a specific location, it can indicate a persistent issue that needs to be addressed.
- Informal complaints to managers, not HR: If employees are willing to voice their concerns but not to the actual grievance handlers, the company must take a closer look at why such hesitance has become commonplace.
- Exit interview patterns: Note common factors departing employees cite as reasons for leaving. Any factor that may have compelled multiple employees to leave must be addressed as soon as possible.
A Manager’s Role in Resolution
During rising conflicts, managers should act as first responders rather than bottlenecks. They need to facilitate the right solutions and provide proper pathways for employees, rather than trying to keep the situation under wraps.
Companies can enable this by training their managers to:
- Listen without minimising
- Document concerns early
- Escalate without fear
When managers are unprepared or even defensive during conflict identification, it can lead to larger grievances. Encourage managers to reach out to their superiors or the grievance management team if they feel unprepared or have no other options. Asking when in doubt is a much better option than making the situation worse by accident, no matter the intent.
In the End…
The real goal of grievance management should be resolution, not closure. With a proactive approach, the company takes preventive measures that not only make the employees feel valued but also stop lasting damage.
If problematic issues are left unaddressed until they become unavoidable, the focus often shifts to damage control rather than reaching a solution. Escalation, when out of control and involving legalities, increases workplace stress and can strain team dynamics.
Through simple gestures, a proactive approach, and empathy, managers, HR, and leadership help employees feel comfortable voicing their concerns without wondering whether their issues are really “worth complaining about.” Simply listening, after all, is both mentally and financially cheaper than trying to de-escalate after reaching the breaking point.
