Workplace Relationships: Your Most Underestimated Risk Factor

Let’s talk about one of the most difficult responsibilities in leadership.

A performance has not improved. Support has been given. Expectations have been clarified. Conversations have been documented. And now, you need to meet with the employee to discuss next steps, which may include termination.

No good HR professional walks into that meeting with, “This isn’t working out.”

It starts with rapport. It acknowledges the individual. It references previous discussions. It outlines the situation clearly and respectfully.

But here’s the question that really determines what happens next:

What is the condition of the relationship before that meeting even begins?

Because make no mistake, this is conflict.

The interests of the organisation and the individual are no longer aligned. There is tension. There is discomfort. There may be disappointment, frustration, even grief. The question is not whether conflict exists. The question is whether it will be healthy conflict, free of drama, respectful, and professionally navigated, or unhealthy conflict, reactive, defensive, escalated and costly.

Let’s look at two scenarios.

In both, performance has not improved. In both, a decision needs to be made.

But in one, the outcome leads to dignity, clarity and forward movement, with the relationship still in tact.

In the other, it fuels drama, reputational damage, legal risk, and hours of lost leadership time managing avoidable fallout.

The difference?

The relational foundation beneath it.

Scenario One: Process without Relational Skill

On paper, everything looks correct.

There was a performance improvement plan. There were review meetings. There was documentation.

Technically, the organisation followed procedure. But the relational quality of those conversations was poor.

The tone was sharp. The language leaned toward blame. Feedback felt like attack rather than development. Questions were closed, not curious. There was little compassion.

No:

• “How are you finding this?”

• “What support would genuinely help?”

• “What’s getting in the way?”

• “How are you feeling about where things are at?”

Instead, the message, even if factually accurate, carried undertones of frustration, superiority or impatience.

Over time, something subtle but powerful happens. The employee stops feeling supported and starts feeling judged.

They become defensive. They protect themselves. They document interactions. They disengage emotionally.

So when the final meeting arrives, it is not simply a performance conversation. It is the culmination of perceived blame, criticism and relational rupture. At that point, the decision, even if fair, is filtered through threat, and when people feel under threat, their responses narrow.

Listening reduces. Defensiveness increases. Choice feels limited.

The conflict doesn’t become “emotional,” it already was. It becomes reactive. Instead of being processed with regulation and professional clarity, the situation is met with protection, counter-attack or escalation.

The employee may:

• Challenge the process

• Dispute the fairness

• Raise a grievance

• Escalate externally

• Speak negatively about leadership

What could have been a contained, professionally navigated conflict shifts into a reactive and adversarial one.

From a risk management perspective, this is where cost multiplies:

• Legal exposure

• Management hours lost to dispute

• Increased stress for HR

• Cultural ripple effects across the team

• Reputation damage

The organisation had a performance process, what it lacked was relational competence. Process without relational skill doesn’t remove emotion, it simply increases the likelihood that emotion will drive reaction rather than thoughtful response.

Scenario Two: Accountability With Relational Competence

Now consider the same performance outcome but built on a different foundation.

Expectations were clear from day one. Feedback was regular and two-way. Concerns were addressed early. Support was genuinely explored. Difficult conversations were handled with openess and respect.

The employee understood where they stood. They were not surprised. They were treated with dignity.

Emotion was still present. Of course it was. We can not remove emotion from any scenario, it is built deep within our DNA. It is there for survival (although survival is a tad different to 10,000 years ago)!

But, in this case psychological safety is present. So, when the final conversation occurs, it may still be difficult, fear, anger and sadness may be present, but it is not experienced as betrayal or foul play.

The individual may not agree with the decision. But they understand it.

They feel heard. They feel informed. They feel respected.

And because their core human need for connection has not been violated, their response remains regulated. The outcome becomes cleaner. Professional. Contained. In some cases, even constructive, with references offered, clarity gained, and mutual recognition that the fit was not right.

Same decision.

Very different organisational impact.

Risk Management Control

For HR professionals and team leaders, relationship health is not about being “nice.”

It supports operational risk control.

Unhealthy relationships amplify:

• Litigation risk

• Emotional reactivity

• Conflict escalation

• Absence and presenteeism

• Cultural instability

Healthy relationships reduce unpredictability, and unpredictability is where risk lives. When trust is present, people may not agree with the outcome, but they are less likely to experience it as foul play.

That distinction matters in employment law. It matters in tribunals. It matters in brand protection.

But it matters even more at a human level.

The Human Need Beneath the Policy

Connection is not a luxury at work. It is a biological requirement.

When people feel:

• Seen

• Heard

• Treated fairly

• Given clarity

• Allowed dignity

Their nervous systems remain regulated, even during difficult conversations. When those needs are absent, threat responses dominate. Listening drops. Rational processing narrows. Escalation becomes more likely.

At that point, HR isn’t just managing performance. They’re managing dysregulation.

And dysregulated environments are expensive.

The Leadership Reflection

If an exit conversation consistently results in unregulated anger, shock, or dispute, the question is rarely:

“What’s wrong with employees?”

It is:

“What relational groundwork are we laying before performance becomes critical?”

Healthy relational architecture includes:

• Awareness – recognising emotional data before it drives reactive behaviour.

• Ownership – taking responsibility for response rather than assigning blame.

• Expression – communicating clearly without attack or avoidance.

• Connection – building trust early so accountability is not experienced as threat.

• Stability – maintaining regulation when conversations become uncomfortable.

This is not a “nice to have” wellbeing add-on. It is relational stability, and relational stability directly impacts your risk profile.

Because eventually, hard decisions must be made in every organisation. The cost of those decisions is either absorbed early, through consistent, respectful relational investment.

Or paid later, with interest…and lots of it!

For HR professionals and team leaders, the message is simple:

Relationship health doesn’t remove difficult conversations.

It determines how dangerous they become.

And that makes it one of the most strategic investments you can make.

When relational stability improves, risk exposure reduces.

If this is an area your organisation is ready to strengthen, I’m happy to talk through what that could look like.

kayleigh@florightbusinesssolutions.co.uk