For many employers, the most consequential decision in a workplace conflict is not the outcome of the process but the choice of process itself.

Whether an issue is directed towards mediation or escalated into a formal investigation will shape not only the experience of those involved but the organisation’s legal exposure and capacity to bring the matter to a durable resolution. 

This decision is rarely straightforward. Workplace conflict rarely presents itself neatly categorised as either relational or misconduct based, and organisations often face pressure to act quickly amid incomplete information and heightened sensitivity to risk. The challenge for employers is therefore not to identify a universally correct response but to apply informed judgement that is proportionate, defensible and aligned with the nature of the concern. 

The distinct purposes of mediation and investigation 

Mediation and investigation serve fundamentally different functions, despite being frequently positioned as interchangeable options within organisational policy frameworks. 

Mediation is designed to address breakdowns in working relationships, where the core issue is not whether a policy has been breached but whether individuals can continue to work together safely and effectively. It is forward looking, confidential and non-determinative, focusing on restoring functionality rather than establishing fault. Its value lies in its ability to surface underlying dynamics that formal processes tend to entrench rather than resolve. 

Investigations, by contrast, are fact finding exercises. Their purpose is to establish what has happened, assess whether organisational standards have been breached and inform formal decision making. They are necessarily procedural, evidence based and outcome driven, often forming the foundation for disciplinary action or regulatory reporting. Where allegations involve serious misconduct, safeguarding concerns or potential legal liability, investigation is not merely appropriate but essential. 

Confusion arises when organisations attempt to use one process to achieve the objectives of the other, for example by hoping mediation will resolve allegations that require factual determination, or by launching investigations into issues that are primarily relational in nature and where no meaningful findings are likely to emerge. 

Consideration	Mediation	Investigation
Primary purpose	To restore working relationships and enable forward-looking resolution	To establish facts and determine whether standards or policies have been breached
Nature of the issue	Relational conflict, breakdown in trust, ongoing tension	Allegations of misconduct, bullying, harassment or other policy breaches
Focus	Resolution and future working arrangements	Findings, accountability and organisational response
Outcome	Mutually agreed actions or understanding, no formal findings	Formal report with conclusions and recommendations
Allocation of blame	No	Yes, where supported by evidence
Confidentiality	High, with limited organisational visibility of detail	Limited, findings form part of organisational record
Voluntariness	Participation must be genuinely voluntary	Participation is mandatory
Suitability where power imbalance exists	Requires careful risk assessment and often external delivery	Appropriate and often necessary
Legal and safeguarding threshold	Not suitable where serious misconduct or safeguarding concerns are unresolved	Required where legal, regulatory or safeguarding duties apply
Impact on working relationships	Often preserves or rebuilds them	Can strain relationships
Typical organistional cost	Moderate	Resource-intensive in time and process

The risks of choosing the wrong process 

Selecting an inappropriate process introduces risk on multiple fronts. Using mediation where allegations are serious, contested or linked to power imbalance can expose organisations to claims that concerns were minimised or improperly handled. Conversely, defaulting to investigation in situations better suited to mediation can escalate conflict unnecessarily, damage working relationships beyond repair and generate costs that far exceed the value of any eventual findings. 

Formal processes are not neutral in their impact. Acas estimates that disciplinary processes alone cost employers around £2.0 billion each year, largely driven by management time and procedural complexity, while grievance handling adds a further £356 million annually in leadership capacity diverted away from operational priorities. These figures reflect not inefficiency but the inherent resource intensity of formal conflict management, underscoring the importance of reserving investigations for circumstances where their purpose is clear and justified. 

There is also a reputational dimension. Employees increasingly assess organisational fairness not only by outcomes but by whether the chosen process feels proportionate and appropriate to the issue raised. A misjudged escalation can undermine trust in organisational systems, even where procedures are technically compliant. 

Thresholds and decision making in practice 

In practice, the decision between mediation and investigation hinges on a small number of critical questions. Is the issue primarily about behaviour that may constitute misconduct, or about the deterioration of a working relationship. Are there safeguarding or regulatory considerations that require formal determination. Is there a significant power imbalance that would undermine the voluntariness of mediation. Does the organisation need findings to act, or does it need resolution to move forward. 

Where the answer to these questions is unclear, caution is often warranted, but caution should not be equated with automatic escalation. In many cases, early neutral assessment or scoping conversations conducted by experienced external practitioners can help organisations determine the most appropriate route without prematurely committing to a process that may later prove disproportionate. 

Timing is also critical. Mediation introduced early can prevent issues from hardening into formal complaints, whereas mediation offered after an investigation has commenced or concluded is far less likely to succeed, particularly where trust has already been eroded by adversarial processes. 

Legal expectations and proportionality 

Employment tribunals and regulators are increasingly attentive to whether employers have acted reasonably and proportionately in their handling of conflict. This does not mean that mediation must be used in all cases, nor that investigation is inherently excessive, but that organisations should be able to demonstrate a clear rationale for the approach taken. 

The financial and operational consequences of failing to do so are tangible. Acas estimates that litigation related activity, including management time, legal fees and compensation, costs employers hundreds of millions of pounds each year. While mediation outcomes remain confidential, the decision to consider mediation, or to explain why it was not appropriate, can be a material factor in demonstrating procedural fairness. 

Proportionality therefore becomes the organising principle. Mediation and investigation are not competing tools but complementary ones, each with a defined role within a coherent conflict management framework. 

A judgement call, not a binary choice 

The most effective organisations resist the temptation to treat mediation and investigation as binary alternatives. Instead, they recognise that complex cases often require sequencing, with investigation addressing immediate risk and mediation supporting longer term repair where appropriate. 

This requires confidence, expertise and independence. Internal teams under pressure may struggle to maintain objectivity when stakes are high, which is why external support is often critical at decision points rather than only at the point of delivery. 

In many cases, the decision between mediation and investigation is not clear-cut. Issues may sit close to threshold, involve overlapping relational and conduct concerns, or carry reputational or safeguarding implications that require careful handling. In these circumstances, the greatest risk often lies not in the conflict itself but in committing prematurely to a process that later proves disproportionate or misaligned with the issue at hand. 

CMP supports organisations at precisely this decision point. By providing independent assessment and expert guidance, we help employers determine whether mediation, investigation or an alternative intervention is most appropriate. This enables organisations to proceed with clarity, reducing legal exposure while protecting working relationships wherever possible. 

Choosing between mediation and investigation is not an administrative decision but a strategic one. With the right expertise applied early, it becomes an opportunity to resolve conflict in a way that is fair, defensible and sustainable, rather than a source of avoidable risk.