An unhealthy work setting could hamper a firm’s ability to serve clients expediently and professionally, so it is wise to take proactive steps to ensure those matters don’t fester. For those in charge of a law firm, it can be tricky to determine whether a higher-up should intervene in conflicts or whether the disgruntled parties should be left to navigate their problems on their own.

Of course, the nature of the issues can dictate whether intervention is necessary. For example, if the conflict involves alleged sexual harassment or other potential improper or prohibited behaviors, immediate supervisory intervention is appropriate and required. However, for matters not rising to that level of import, deciding when and whether to intervene can be vexing.

Greg Clement, a California lawyer with Burkhalter Kessler Clement & George LLP, thinks supervisory intervention in office conflicts is important. “Initially, you need to speak with them individually,” he says of the people involved in the issue. In Clement’s mind, that step is of paramount importance to glean pertinent information regarding the conflict.

He cites a situation within his own law firm as an example. “We actually fired an attorney recently and confronted the lawyer with evidence someone else in the firm gave us,” he says.

Meeting with disgruntled employees separate from one another is an attempt to engender an atmosphere of trust. “You need to do what you can to allow people to speak freely. You lose the opportunity for candor and honesty if you put people in an uncomfortable situation,” Clement says.

Still, he also believes a firm owner’s responsibility is to “help all parties see the situation from the other person’s point of view.” So, while he might speak with the disgruntled parties separately from one another, at least initially, it is still the boss’ job to “decipher fact from lies, credibility from dishonesty and people’s contributions to the conflict in the first place,” Clement says.

However, not all experts agree. Just ask business consultant and motivational speaker Chris King. According to King, supervisory intervention in workplace conflicts depends on the owner’s area of expertise and the company’s culture. He says it is his own personal style to get all parties together to meet and discuss everything simultaneously.

As the owner of a law firm, you are responsible for the good of the employees and the organization, he says. “The duty of a leader is to make everyone subordinate to them better. Ultimately, in service to each person and what’s best for the organization, the boss’ job is to create and cultivate a supportive, positive environment,” King says.

Both experts agree that when it comes to resolving workplace conflicts, the employer must remain neutral. The boss “needs to come in with total humility and no preconceived notions. They must come from the vantage point of seeking understanding and trying to understand how the employees perceive a situation rather than” clouding matters with their one’s own prejudices, King says.

“Set the expectation in advance to be neutral without expectations,” he advises.

According to King, people in conflict with one another share three powerful needs in common. They all want to be:

• Heard
• Understood
• Accepted

“It’s best to be able to resolve issues at the level of the people’s perception of the conflict,” King says. Moreover, he advises bosses to recognize that conflicts, as represented, may not be the actual problem between people. “The issue as it presents itself is not the issue but it is how the issue is showing up,” he says.

For example, if a secretary has a pen stolen, the issue may not necessarily be solely they are missing a writing implement. Are there trust issues at work? Is the alleged thief a kleptomaniac who doesn’t even realize they stole something? Understanding the impetus for behavior goes a long way towards resolving conflicts, King says.

He is emphatic when he says all businesses, not just law firms, should create a written employee manual featuring company policies for resolving workplace conflicts. “The process for addressing employee conflicts should be clearly communicated,” he says.

It’s no secret the best outcome of workplace strife is implementing a solution that allows everyone to continue to work together amicably. When that is not possible, another option is trying to establish a new work environment that allows all parties to a conflict to retain their employment while minimizing potentially contentious interactions.

However, if that is not feasible, the boss needs to either “reassign one party to a new position or decide who to get rid of,” Clement says. “One bad apple can really ruin the whole bunch,” he says, especially in a small firm environment with few employees.

Continued conflict will likely lead to reduced productivity and morale, and those are bad for a law firm’s bottom line and professional reputation. It’s for that reason Clement offers all entrepreneurs another piece of advice. “All business owners need employment practices liability insurance,” he says. And, if the decision is made to terminate someone, ask the dismissed employee to sign a separation agreement with an appropriate severance package.

“You don’t want to be looking over your shoulder” for the rest of your life, he says.

Tami Kamin Meyer is an Ohio attorney and writer. She is the chair of the marketing committee of the American Society of Journalists and Authors.