Workplace Conflict Resolution Through Restorative Conferencing
Let conflict be the catalyst. Restorative Conferencing is a structured process, based on restorative justice principles, that resolves workplace conflict by directly addressing harm and rebuilding working relationships rather than assigning blame. It brings everyone affected by a conflict into a facilitated conversation designed to surface what happened, its impact, and a shared plan to move forward.
Why Restorative Conferencing, and how it relates to a formal investigation
Most workplace complaints contain more than one kind of harm. A single incident can involve physical harm, harm to something material that a person holds like pay or position, and/or harm to a person's standing among the people they work with. Each of these calls for a different remedy, and only one of them, harm to something concrete and disputable, is what a workplace investigation is built to resolve neatly.
A formal investigation tests credibility and produces findings. That makes it the right tool when facts are genuinely in dispute and a fair process needs to establish what happened. But even a well-run investigation, one that reaches a clean, defensible finding, cannot repair what an incident did to how someone is seen and treated by their colleagues. That kind of harm isn't a disputed fact to be found, it's a relationship to be rebuilt. We explore this distinction in more depth here, including why treating the wrong kind of harm with the wrong tool can itself become a hazard.
Restorative Conferencing is the remedy for that register. It's often used after a formal investigation concludes, to do the relational repair the findings alone can't reach. Sometimes it runs instead of an investigation, when nothing material is genuinely in dispute and the harm is squarely relational. Occasionally it runs alongside one, addressing the relationship in parallel while the investigation addresses a contested fact. The right sequencing depends on what's actually in the complaint, not a fixed rule, and is often shaped by the organization's own internal stakeholders, general counsel or the senior OHS leaders managing psychosocial risk, who weigh legal and procedural considerations alongside the relational ones.
Our approach has been validated by the UK's largest Randomized Controlled Trial in the social sciences and is one of the few professional interventions proven to deliver a measurable 9:1 return on investment. It's been adopted in workplaces, criminal justice systems, and communities worldwide.
Phase 1 – Preparation
ProActive reviews relevant documents and interviews everyone affected by the conflict individually
These conversations surface each person's perspective, the personal and professional impact of what happened, and invite reflection on their own role
By the end of this phase, ProActive has identified which incidents need to be addressed and who needs to take part in the group conversation
Phase 2 – ProActive Conference
Everyone directly affected comes together for a structured, facilitated dialogue
The conversation addresses what happened, how people were affected personally and professionally, and what needs to change to move from conflict to cooperation
Participants leave with a written Conference Agreement, accepting personal responsibility and committing to specific, time-bound actions
Phase 3 – Follow-up
ProActive supports the group in actually implementing the Agreement, not just producing it
This includes checking in with your organization's contact and following up directly with participants on their commitments
A short Recall Session, held six to eight weeks after the conference, reviews progress and acknowledges the work already done
Key Benefits
Repair harm to workplace relationships
Build accountability among affected employees
Clarify what has been happening from all perspectives
Allow for a deeper understanding of the impact of behaviours on individuals and the team
Develop a clear, written agreement on what needs to change, with participants accepting personal responsibility
Effectively transform conflict into cooperation through a supported implementation process
Who We Work With
This service is for organizations seeking to resolve internal conflict and repair workplace relationships, particularly where relationships need to continue in order to get the work done; teams, departments, or working groups where an ongoing working relationship is central to outcomes, separate from establishing fault.
We have deep experience working with: Global 500 Companies | Indigenous Organizations & Communities | Government Agencies | Healthcare Providers | Emergency Responders | Natural Resources & Forestry
Frequently Asked Questions
Do we need to choose between Restorative Conferencing and a formal investigation? No. Most complaints contain more than one kind of harm, and the two processes often work together: an investigation to resolve any disputed facts, and a Conference to repair what the incident did to working relationships. We work within whatever sequence your organization's decision-makers determine is right for the case.
How is Restorative Conferencing different from mediation? Mediation and similar processes work well when trust between the parties is still intact and the issue is a specific, bounded disagreement, a dispute over a decision, a resource, or how to interpret a policy. Conferencing is built for a different situation: when trust has broken down and people have come to doubt each other's motives, not just disagree on an issue. Restorative Conferencing addresses the relationship itself rather than any single dispute. If you're not sure which situation you're in, our Conflict or Dispute diagnostic can help clarify that before you choose a process. Is there research evidence behind restorative conferencing for workplace conflict?
Yes. A 2013 Campbell Systematic Review by Strang, Sherman, Mayo-Wilson, Woods, and Ariel analyzed ten randomized controlled trials of face-to-face restorative conferencing and found consistent positive effects. One of those trials, the original Canberra RISE study, was co-led by ProActive ReSolutions founder John McDonald in his earlier work with the Australian Federal Police and ANU. ProActive's conflict resolution practice is built directly on those restorative justice principles. Full methodology and sourcing
How long does the process take?
Most engagements take two months from start to finish. The timeline depends on the group's availability and, where relevant, whether other processes like a formal investigation need to wrap up first.
Who needs to be involved? Broadly, those affected by the harm done. The specific list of participants for the Conference itself is something ProActive determines as part of the process, once we have a fuller picture of the situation, rather than something we can specify upfront.
If you're dealing with a situation where relationships need repair, not just facts established, book a call to talk through whether Restorative Conferencing is the right next step. Let conflict be the catalyst.