Interdepartmental Conflict Q&A: Where Should HR Start Mediation?

💬 This was compiled based on 2 actual questions from the inquiry board.

This Q&A is Actual inquiries posted on the inquiry board It was structured based on ① the question regarding the extent to which records of employee grievance and condition interviews should be kept, and ② the question regarding whether repeated public criticism from a supervisor constitutes general work feedback or potential harassment. When viewing these two inquiries together, what HR must do in conflict situations is not simply to reconcile the parties involved, but... Organizing the facts, verifying the work structure, and delineating the boundaries between general arbitration and formal proceedings no see.

📌 Quick Answer: We look at the 'conflict structure' before the parties involved.

When receiving a report of inter-departmental conflict, rather than first determining 'who is the bigger problem' In which tasks, which standards conflict with each other, and as a result, what delays, rework, and disputes over responsibility are repeated It is advisable to check the following. If the cause of the conflict lies in R&R, KPIs, approval authority, or workflow, the same problem may recur even with reconciliation between the individuals.

❓ Q1. For HR, should I seat both sides directly in one seat?

Rather than arranging a face-to-face meeting right away First, separately verify the fact, request, and decision-making structures of each department. It is better to do so. If you tell them to "resolve the misunderstanding" right from the start, the issue may escalate into a matter of attitude or emotion, even if the cause lies in the work structure.

❓ Q2. To what extent is delegated to managers, and when does HR step in directly?

It is important to distinguish whether the situation is at a level where managers can handle routine work adjustments, or whether HR must take charge of restructuring or separate grievance procedures. Like repetitive schedule delays, rework, and disputes over responsibility. Patterns that affect organizational performance If this is visible, or if one party fears a face-to-face confrontation and concerns are raised regarding public criticism, exclusion, or retaliation, it is better for HR to directly verify the facts and the need for protection.

❓ Q3. Wouldn't the problem be solved if we conducted communication training first?

If the cause of the conflict is the way meetings are conducted or feedback is expressed, training can be helpful. However, A situation where roles overlap, KPIs conflict, and approval authority is ambiguous If you only conduct communication training, the structure remains the same, and you may end up shifting the responsibility of 'communicating well' to the members.

❓ Q4. What needs to be agreed upon at the arbitration meeting?

Rather than abstract agreements like 'getting along well' Behaviors that actually need to change in the next collaboration It is advisable to establish this. Mediation meetings are easier to manage practically if designed as a venue to get work running again rather than a place to resolve emotions.

1. Common Fact Check — Check which delays and rework occurred in which tasks.
2. Organization of decision-making authority — Determines who requests, who approves, and who makes the final decision.
3. Agreement based on request criteria — Meets necessary materials, request methods, deadlines, and urgency criteria.
4. Narrow down to 1-3 actions — We will only decide on items that can be changed immediately starting next week.
5. Specify person in charge and deadline — Records who changes what and by when.
6. Reconfirm date reservation — We schedule an actual inspection date, rather than saying 'contact us again if there is a problem.'

❓ Q5. How is the effect of the intervention verified?

Just because mediation has ended does not mean the conflict has been resolved. Rather than satisfaction Work delays, rework, repetitive inquiries, approval waiting times, and the recurrence of the same conflict It is a good idea to see if the problem actually decreased before mediation, like this.

❓ Q6. To what extent are interview records kept during conflict mediation?

Questions have been posted on the inquiry board stating that when interviewing employees regarding their grievances and condition, keeping overly detailed records is burdensome, while recording them too briefly makes them difficult to review later. Regarding records of departmental conflict mediation as well, rather than transcribing every remark... Work Facts · Impact · Requests · Agreements · Follow-up Schedule It is better to leave it centered on.

Minimize personal personality assessments, presumptive diagnoses, and unnecessary details regarding private life. If specific allegations of harassment are raised, it is necessary to distinguish between general mediation records and official grievance and investigation records.

⚠️ The reason this article covers the judgment of harassment only briefly

Questions such as "whether a supervisor's repeated public criticism constitutes harassment" overlap with the boundaries of departmental conflict, but delving deeply into them duplicates existing content regarding workplace harassment counseling and investigations. In this article, If specific concerns regarding public insult, exclusion, repeated pressure, or retaliation are raised, it is separated from general arbitration. It covers only the operating principles. Subsequent legal judgments and official investigation procedures must be reviewed in a separate workplace harassment procedure.

✅ HR Mediation Checklist

💬 EAP does not resolve conflict structures on your behalf.

EAP counseling is not a system designed to mediate conflicts regarding roles, approval authority, or KPIs between departments. Organizations must directly improve their work structures and managerial roles, and it is advisable to utilize EAP as a supplementary channel to safely address individual psychological burdens, such as anxiety, anger, burnout, and sleep problems, during this process.

📎 Actual inquiries reflected in this Q&A

❓ FAQ

📚 Source and Verification Criteria

• Nudge EAP Inquiry Board · How detailed are your employee interview records?
• Nudge EAP Inquiry Board · Is a supervisor repeatedly pointing out issues in public also considered workplace harassment?
• National Law Information Center · Article 76-3 of the Labor Standards Act (Measures in Case of Workplace Harassment)

This article is Nudge EAP 2 Korean inquiries actually registered on the inquiry board Based on this, this is a Q&A that practically expands upon and organizes where HR should initiate mediation in inter-departmental conflicts. We have not arbitrarily created and included Korean inquiries directly asking about 'inter-departmental conflict'; instead, we have reorganized common operational issues identified in actual questions—such as interview records and repeated public criticisms—into perspectives regarding R&R, KPIs, approval authority, workflow, mediation, and follow-up monitoring. Actual harassment investigations, disciplinary actions, and labor judgments may vary depending on the specific facts. Verification Date: September 18, 2026.