Guide news
All Latest News →Current developments
GMC training survey shows improvement but persistent variation
General Medical CouncilRCOG refreshes support resources for doctors
Royal College of Obstetricians and GynaecologistsRCP publishes SAS priorities for 2026–30
Royal College of PhysiciansRCEM condemns rising violence and discrimination against NHS staff
Royal College of Emergency Medicine04
Understand
Difficult workplace relationships
Distinguish disagreement, poor communication, incivility and persistent undermining, then choose a response that protects safety and dignity.
Not every conflict is bullying, but behaviour does not need a legal label before it can be addressed. Describe what occurred, its pattern and impact; assess power and safety; then choose direct conversation, supported resolution or a formal route.
By the end of this module, you should be able to:
- Distinguish ordinary disagreement from harmful behaviour.
- Use a structured conversation where appropriate.
- Recognise when informal resolution is unsafe or insufficient.
Conflict, incivility and undermining
Professional disagreement can be legitimate and sometimes essential for safe care. It becomes harmful when the method is humiliating, threatening, discriminatory, persistently dismissive or designed to exclude. Incivility may include interruptions, sarcasm, eye-rolling, ignoring contributions or discourteous messages. Undermining may involve repeatedly questioning competence without basis, withholding necessary information, moving expectations, taking credit or excluding someone from work they need to perform their role.
One serious incident can matter; repetition is not always required. Pattern nevertheless helps explain cumulative harm. Consider behaviour, context, frequency, audience, power, impact, response when challenged and whether others are treated differently. Avoid beginning with a contest over labels. A factual account allows the organisation to examine what happened.
Prepare a direct conversation
Where safe, clarify your purpose: to stop a behaviour, understand a misunderstanding, agree a working method or protect a clinical process. Choose a private setting and describe one or two examples. Use a simple structure: when this happened, the effect was this, and I need this to change. Invite response without surrendering the boundary.
For example: 'When my plan was described as ridiculous in front of the ward team, it made clinical discussion difficult and undermined confidence in the agreed plan. If you disagree, please raise the clinical concern without personal language.' Do not send a long accusatory email while distressed. Draft, pause, obtain advice and decide whether a conversation or formal record is more appropriate.
When not to meet alone
A direct conversation may be unsuitable where there has been violence, threat, sexual behaviour, severe intimidation, a marked power imbalance, retaliation, active investigation or a reasonable fear for safety. It may also be unhelpful when the person has already denied repeated clear examples or when policy requires formal handling. Seek union, HR, dignity-at-work, speaking-up or managerial advice before arranging contact.
Mediation is voluntary and aims to help parties find a workable resolution; it is not an investigation and does not decide whether discrimination occurred. It may help misunderstanding or relationship breakdown, but should not be used to pressure a person into confronting alleged abuse or to avoid examining serious allegations. Ask what the process records, what remains confidential and whether you can obtain advice before agreeing.
Protect the clinical work
Relationship difficulty can affect handover, escalation and willingness to ask for help. Make clinical communication explicit and use recognised channels. Confirm important decisions, responsibilities and escalation in the patient record or approved operational system as appropriate. Do not use the clinical record to document an employment dispute.
If another person's conduct creates immediate patient risk, raise that risk through clinical governance even while the relationship issue is addressed separately. A request for respectful behaviour should never depend on accepting unsafe ambiguity in patient care.
Seek support without creating a rumour network
Choose people by role: a supervisor for work and development, a SAS Advocate for navigation and patterns, a union for employment advice, occupational health or a clinician for health, and a speaking-up route for wider safety or organisational concern. A trusted colleague may help you think, but repeated informal retelling can breach confidentiality and entrench camps.
Tell supporters what you need: listening, help organising facts, attendance at a meeting, policy interpretation, representation or clinical care. Ask what notes they keep and whether they may have to share information. This is particularly important if the person also holds a management, educational or investigative role.
Review whether the response worked
An apology can be meaningful, but resolution should be judged by subsequent behaviour and restored safety. Agree practical changes and a review point. If the conduct continues, add the new event to the chronology and reconsider the route. The failure of an informal attempt does not mean the original concern lacked merit.
Watch for retaliation, isolation, adverse rota changes, removal of opportunity or disproportionate scrutiny after a concern is raised. Obtain advice promptly if this occurs. In discrimination law, less favourable treatment because someone made or supported a protected complaint may amount to victimisation, but only an appropriate adviser or tribunal can determine a legal claim.
Worked example: disagreement becoming personal
During several meetings, a doctor’s clinical suggestions are interrupted and described as obstructive. The doctor first checks the minutes and speaks privately with the chair, giving two precise examples and asking that disagreements be summarised and decisions allocated fairly. The chair agrees ground rules and a review after two meetings.
When the same behaviour recurs and a decision is withheld from the doctor’s team, the doctor updates the chronology and seeks advice. The earlier informal attempt is not treated as failure; it demonstrates the requested change, the opportunity provided and the continuing effect on work.
Questions before a direct conversation
Ask whether you feel physically and professionally safe, whether the person controls your employment or assessment, whether there is a serious allegation, whether evidence could be lost, what outcome you want and whether a supporter or facilitated process would be more appropriate.
Plan a stopping point. If the discussion becomes threatening, discriminatory or clinically unsafe, end it calmly, make a factual record and obtain support. A direct conversation is an option, not a test of courage.
What outcome do you need from the relationship - explanation, changed behaviour, protection, investigation or a different way of working?
Keep in mind
Three takeaways
- 1Address observable conduct rather than diagnosing motive or character.
- 2Informal resolution depends on safety, consent and seriousness.
- 3Keep clinical governance and employment concerns connected but recorded in the correct systems.
Knowledge check
Check your understanding
Six questions on Difficult workplace relationships test process and practical judgement. This is educational: it does not assess your health, evidence sufficiency or decide a legal issue.
Question 1 of 6
Choose one answer to continue.
Recommended workbooks
Use these privately and remove identifiable clinical information.
Check the source
Page last reviewed 7 September 2026. General educational guidance, not an individual clinical, employment or legal assessment.Official and professional guidance
Open the current source and note the jurisdiction before applying it.