Interdepartmental Conflict Q&A: Where Should HR Start Mediation?
Interdepartmental Conflict Q&A: Where Should HR Start Mediation?
When inter-departmental conflict arises, rather than HR immediately connecting them with "try talking it out," Whether it is a conflict regarding roles, goals, or processes, a relationship conflict, or the possibility of workplace harassment It is a good idea to start by sharing.
The starting point of mediation is not a person's personality. What repeatedly conflicts in a particular task It is to verify this. First, review roles, KPIs, approval authority, information, and deadlines, and if there is a possibility of harassment, separate general conflict mediation from formal procedures.
💬 We have grouped repeated questions from the inquiry board.
Inter-departmental conflict is summarized in a single sentence like "they don't get along," but if you look at actual inquiries... Issues with broken collaboration, manager response, interviews and records, harassment vigilance There are often cases where they are all mixed together. Therefore, HR's first role is not to immediately present a mediation proposal, but Dividing the types of conflict first no see.
📌 First answer: HR looks at where the conflict arises first, rather than 'who is at fault'.
| Types of conflict | What HR checks first | First measure |
|---|---|---|
| Conflict in roles and division of duties | Who makes the decisions and who executes them, and whether there are any overlaps or gaps. | R&R · Reorganization of Decision-Making Authority |
| Goal/KPI Conflict | Are the departmental goals in opposite directions? | Agreement on common goals and priorities |
| Business process bottleneck | Whether repeated delays occur in the request, approval, and handover processes | Workflow, SLA, and Approval Phase Check |
| Relationship and communication conflicts | Is it a recurring problem regarding specific expressions, meeting styles, or feedback methods? | Summary of Communication Rules After Neutral Interview |
| Lack of managerial intervention | Is there any behavior of neglecting conflicts or taking sides? | Summary of Manager Roles and Intervention Criteria |
| Possibility of harassment | Factual circumstances such as superiority, appropriate scope of business, repetition, and content of the act | Review of formal procedures separate from general arbitration |
❓ Q1. Can't we start with 'Try meeting and talking'?
Sometimes, bringing the parties involved together from the beginning leads to a quicker resolution, but Without confirming whether the cause of the conflict is personal feelings or the work structure. In this case, the dispute over responsibility may only escalate. Especially if there is a significant difference in authority or if there has been public criticism, exclusion, or repeated objections, it is safer to first verify the facts and desired measures for each party rather than immediately scheduling face-to-face mediation.
Rather than 'Who should apologize first?' What tasks cause recurring conflicts, what decision-making authority, information, and deadlines clash, and what makes it difficult to continue current work I ask.
❓ Q2. If there is a lack of communication between departments, should we start with communication training?
As suggested by the question on the inquiry board regarding the need for "communication and cooperation within the department," in a situation where pressure for sales and performance is increasing and members are only focusing on their own tasks, rather than simple communication skills Goal conflicts, workload overload, lack of reward for collaboration, unclear roles You need to check this first.
It is best to use training as a supplementary measure after identifying the cause. Conducting problem-solving workshops using actual collaborative tasks, or organizing decision-making authority, request methods, and feedback rules, increases practical applicability in the field.
❓ Q3. At what point must HR directly mediate?
| situation | Level of HR intervention |
|---|---|
| Simple differences of opinion, work can be adjusted between the parties. | Provide standards and questions so that administrators can make adjustments |
| The same issues are recurring and affecting schedules and performance | HR identifies structural causes after a separate interview |
| Department heads issue different instructions | Organize the decision-making structure, including senior approvers. |
| Concerns raised regarding profanity, public humiliation, exclusion, and retaliation. | Review of harassment and grievance procedures, not general conflict mediation |
| One side fears face-to-face interaction or there is a significant power gap | Confirm the need for separate interviews and protection first, rather than forced face-to-face contact. |
❓ Q4. How much detail should be kept in conflict interviews?
The question of 'how detailed should employee interview records be kept' is repeatedly asked on the inquiry board as well. Departmental conflict interviews are more than appraisals Observed and stated facts, business impact, requests, measures notified by the company, next verification date It is best to leave it at the center.
| Content to leave | example |
|---|---|
| Meeting Date & Attendees | 2026.09.18 / HR, Person in charge of Department A |
| Work where conflicts arise | New Campaign Approval and Data Delivery Process |
| Fact-based explanation | It was explained that schedule delays occurred three times because the requested deadlines were perceived differently by each department. |
| Work impact | Rework, approval delays, repeated meetings |
| Party Request | Request for centralization of request channels and clarification of the final approver |
| HR Guidance and Measures | Scheduled for consultation with the department head after reviewing the workflow. |
| Follow-up schedule | Sharing and reconfirming the mediation proposal after one week |
Rather than recording evaluations such as "Department A is selfish" or "Team Leader B has a strong personality," it is better to document facts verifiable from actual work and follow-up actions.
❓ Q5. What if I filed a complaint as a 'conflict' but workplace harassment is mentioned?
General conflict mediation and workplace harassment procedures must be viewed separately. When specific issues such as repeated public criticism, insults, exclusion, or concerns about retaliation are raised, rather than concluding the matter with mediation by stating that "it seems there was a misunderstanding on both sides," A separate review is required to determine whether the matter requires an investigation under the Labor Standards Act. You must do it.
While HR does not need to immediately determine whether harassment has occurred during the initial interview, it must be able to identify the specific perpetrator, behavior, timing, frequency, and appropriate scope of work, as well as the measures desired by the party involved, and guide them through the official reporting and investigation procedures.
🧭 Practical Sequence of HR Mediation
- Separate interviews for each person — Identify which tasks or situations cause recurring conflicts, rather than focusing on emotions.
- Identification of structural factors — View roles, KPIs, approval authority, information, deadlines, personnel, and meeting structure.
- Distinction between subjects and non-subjects of mediation — Separate whether it is a general work conflict or requires harassment, grievance, or disciplinary procedures.
- Agreement on minimum implementation plan — Narrow down who, when, and what to decide and deliver based on 1 to 3 criteria.
- Assign administrator role — Instead of leaving the resolution solely to the parties involved in the conflict, the manager defines the actions to be verified.
- Follow-up inspection — Re-check for the recurrence of delays, rework, or conflicts after 1 to 4 weeks.
✅ HR Checklist
| Confirmation items | check |
|---|---|
| I checked the recurring work situation first, rather than the personalities of the parties involved in the conflict. | □ |
| We identified areas where roles, responsibilities, and decision-making authority were unclear. | □ |
| I checked if departmental KPIs or priorities conflicted. | □ |
| We met with both parties separately before the face-to-face mediation. | □ |
| Interview records were kept focusing on facts, business impact, requests, and follow-up actions. | □ |
| The possibility of harassment, including power disparities, fear of retaliation, and public insults, was separately confirmed. | □ |
| I distinguished between problems requiring education and problems requiring process fixes. | □ |
| The manager's follow-up actions and verification date were determined. | □ |
| We selectively introduced EAP to employees experiencing significant burnout and anxiety due to conflict. | □ |
💬 EAP supports psychological burden rather than replacing intervention.
Conflicts regarding job responsibilities, approval authority, and KPIs must be resolved directly by the organization. EAP counseling cannot replace these structural issues. However, it can guide employees whose anxiety, anger, burnout, or sleep problems have worsened during conflicts to confidential individual counseling, and can provide managers with guidelines on communication and counseling coordination in conflict situations.
Recommended Posts
❓ FAQ
Q1. Can we consider both parties to the conflict to be at fault?
Initially, it is better to examine specific actions and work structures rather than dividing blame equally. In fact, if there is a possibility of abuse of power or harassment by one side, it should not be simplified into a 'mutual conflict.'
Q2. Is it better to have the department head attend the mediation meeting immediately?
It may be necessary if the issue is a structural matter that needs to be resolved under the authority of the department head, but if the party involved is in a situation where they cannot speak freely, it is better to hold a separate meeting first to clarify the key issues and then determine the scope of attendance.
Q3. Are there conflicts that can be resolved solely through communication training?
If the cause lies in feedback methods or meeting communication, this can be helpful. However, if the core issue is conflicts over roles, KPIs, or approval authority, improving systems and processes should come before training.
Q4. How long after mediation should I check again?
While it depends on the frequency of issues and the work cycle, it is advisable to set a specific date to reconfirm after at least one collaboration cycle has passed. The key is not to end with a simple "Let's talk again if necessary."
👉 Next step
If departmental conflicts recur, do not view them solely as interpersonal issues; instead, examine roles, workflows, manager responses, and psychological support for team members separately.
Inquire about Organizational Conflict & EAP Operations →📚 Source and Verification Criteria
- Nudge EAP Inquiry Board · Communication and cooperation within the department are needed
- Nudge EAP Inquiry Board · Administrator Training: Can this be operated together with EAP implementation?
- 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 a Q&A compiled from practical perspectives, gathering questions regarding departmental communication, manager responses, interview records, and harassment posted on the Nudge EAP inquiry board. The investigation, disciplinary action, and labor judgment regarding actual conflict cases may vary depending on the specific facts; when the possibility of harassment is raised, general arbitration and formal investigation procedures must be reviewed separately. Verification Date: September 18, 2026.