As someone who spends every day helping employers navigate workplace conflict, I’ve noticed a subtle but important shift over the past 12 to 18 months. I’m not convinced Australian workplaces are experiencing significantly more conflict than they were five years ago, however, I am convinced we’re becoming much quicker to formalise it.
Increasingly, what could have been a five-minute conversation is becoming a three-page formal grievance before anyone has asked a simple question: “Is this what you meant?”
- A manager provides direct feedback
- A colleague sends a blunt email
- A roster changes
- A request for leave is declined
Rather than seeking clarification, employees are increasingly formalising the issue. The conversation is skipped, assumptions are made, and HR is handed a polished complaint referring to bullying, psychological safety, procedural fairness or adverse action.
Sometimes those complaints raise genuine concerns that absolutely warrant investigation. But I also find myself wondering how many of these matters could have been resolved before they became formal HR processes.
AI hasn’t created workplace conflict. It has changed how we respond to it.
To be clear, I am not criticising artificial intelligence.
When it is used well, it is an incredibly valuable tool. It can improve efficiency, create greater independence, help people organise their thoughts, communicate more clearly and access information or support that may previously have felt out of reach.
The concern is not the technology itself. It is what happens when AI replaces judgement, perspective and human conversation rather than supporting them, and when AI becomes the first conversation instead of the second one.
Not that long ago, if an employee felt upset or frustrated at work, they would often talk it through with a colleague, partner or friend.
- “Maybe they didn’t mean it that way.”
- “Perhaps you should ask them.”
- “Why don’t you have a conversation first?”
Today, many people have another sounding board. They ask AI.
However, unlike a trusted colleague or friend, AI doesn’t know the personalities involved, the history between the individuals or the culture of the workplace. It only knows the information it has been given.
If the prompt begins with, “My manager bullied me,” AI will generally help the user articulate that concern. It can’t ask the manager what happened, it can’t observe the interaction, and it can’t provide the context that often changes our understanding of a situation.
Used thoughtfully, AI can help people express genuine concerns more clearly, which is really important. However, when used without reflection, it can also reinforce a conclusion that has never been tested through conversation. That, in my view, is where the real risk lies.
A professional complaint doesn’t necessarily mean a more serious problem
One of AI’s greatest strengths is that it writes exceptionally well. A concern that may once have been a short email saying, “I’d like to discuss something that happened yesterday,” can quickly become a structured document referring to bullying, victimisation, psychological safety, hostile work environments and procedural fairness.
Those concepts are important and they exist for a reason. However, using legal or HR terminology doesn’t automatically make the underlying issue more serious. In fact, highly polished complaints can unintentionally escalate conflict because they change the tone before the conversation has even begun.
For employers, this creates a new challenge.
A carefully drafted complaint filled with legal terminology naturally signals risk. Managers often feel they have little choice but to commence a formal investigation, engage external advisers and document every step of the process. That is entirely appropriate where allegations are serious.
However, where the underlying issue is a misunderstanding that has never been discussed between the individuals involved, everyone can become caught in a process that may have been avoidable.
An issue that might once have been resolved over a coffee suddenly becomes an investigation consuming weeks of management time, significant cost and considerable emotional energy for everyone involved.
We don’t have complete data, but we know formal disputes are increasing
There is very little publicly available data showing whether internal workplace complaints are increasing. Most organisations don’t publish information about employee grievances, making it difficult to determine whether more concerns are being raised within Australian workplaces.
What we do know is that more workplace disputes are finding their way to the Fair Work Commission.
During the 2024–25 financial year, the Commission received more than 44,000 applications, approximately 24% above the five-year average. General Protections dismissal applications were among the fastest-growing jurisdictions, increasing to the point where the Commission introduced reforms to better manage its growing workload.
We also know the Commission has recognised the growing use of generative AI in proceedings. It now asks parties to disclose whether AI has been used in preparing certain applications and witness statements and has published guidance on the responsible use of AI in Commission matters.
None of this proves AI is responsible for the increase in workplace claims, as there are of course many factors driving litigation, however, it does demonstrate that AI is becoming part of the way workplace disputes are documented, presented and pursued. It has lowered the barrier to producing professional, persuasive documents that once took considerable time and effort to prepare.
That mirrors what we are increasingly seeing in practice. Concerns are arriving as formal complaints rather than conversations.
The skill we are at risk of losing is curiosity
My greatest concern isn’t AI.
It’s what I think we’re forgetting, and that is the value of curiosity and communication. Healthy workplaces have never relied on people always agreeing with each other, they rely on people being curious enough to ask questions before reaching conclusions.
Curiosity sounds like this:
- “Can you help me understand what you meant?”
- “I might have misunderstood. Can we talk?”
- “That didn’t sit well with me yesterday. I’d like to understand your perspective.”
- “Can we grab five minutes before this gets any bigger?”
Those conversations resolve an extraordinary number of workplace issues.
Not every uncomfortable interaction is bullying. Not every disagreement is misconduct. Not every poor communication style requires HR intervention. Sometimes it is simply a case that people are stressed, or may have chosen their words poorly, or it is simply a case of misunderstanding each other.
None of those situations excuse unacceptable behaviour. They do, however, remind us that assumptions should never replace conversations.
Helping employees choose conversation before escalation
This is where employers and leaders have an important role to play.
No employer should discourage employees from raising genuine concerns. Formal complaint processes exist for a reason and should always be available where allegations involve bullying, discrimination, harassment or other serious misconduct. However, many workplace issues begin as misunderstandings, assumptions or poor communication.
Where it is safe and appropriate to do so, leaders can help rebuild a culture of conversation by asking questions such as:
- “Have you had an opportunity to speak with the other person?”
- “What outcome are you hoping to achieve?”
- “Would you feel comfortable if I facilitated a conversation?”
- “Is there another explanation we should consider before reaching a conclusion?”
These questions don’t minimise an employee’s concerns. They create an opportunity for understanding before positions become entrenched and formal processes become inevitable.
Good workplaces don’t avoid difficult conversations, they have them early.
Let’s not lose the human skills
Artificial intelligence is here to stay, and that’s a good thing. It will continue to improve the way we work, write and solve problems. But we shouldn’t allow technology to replace one of the most valuable workplace skills of all: the ability to ask a question before making an accusation.
Curiosity builds understanding. Understanding builds trust. Trust resolves far more workplace issues than any formal grievance process ever will.
AI has made it easier than ever to draft a complaint, but it has not made it easier to build understanding. If we’re not careful, we’ll become exceptionally good at documenting workplace conflict while becoming much less skilled at resolving it. And that would be a loss for every workplace.
Karen Arnold, Managing Director, EWS
Disclaimer: This article is general in nature and provides a summary only of the subject matter without the assumption of a duty of care by Effective Workplace Solutions. No person should rely on the contents as a substitute for legal or other professional advice.