2025 marks a significant milestone for Acas - 50 years as a statutory service under the Employment Protection Act 1975, building on a legacy of resolving workplace conflict dating back to the Conciliation Act 1896. To mark this anniversary and address the evolving nature of work-related disputes, Acas commissioned the National Centre for Social Research to conduct the largest-ever study of individual workplace conflict in Great Britain. The findings, published in the report How prevalent is individual conflict at work in Great Britain in 2025?, reveal a record high level of conflict, offering critical insights for employers, managers and policy makers navigating the modern workplace.

Conducted between August and September 2025, the survey engaged 4,556 working-age adults (achieving a 50% response rate) who had undertaken work in the previous 12 months. Its robust methodology—drawing on the NatCen Opinion Panel with probability-based sampling and weighting to ensure representativeness—delivers statistically significant findings that highlight the scale, nature and impact of workplace conflict. For businesses, the report is more than a data collection; it is a roadmap for fostering healthier employment relations, a core pillar of Acas’s 2025–2030 strategy alongside better conflict management and timely dispute resolution.

Record Conflict Prevalence: Key Demographic and Organisational Trends

The survey’s headline finding is unprecedented: 44% of working-age adults in Great Britain experienced workplace conflict in the last 12 months. Defined as disagreements, disputes or difficult relationships with colleagues, managers, direct reports, customers or external partners (either as isolated incidents or ongoing issues), this figure exceeds all previous estimates (which ranged from 25% to 38%) and confirms individual conflict as a pervasive challenge in contemporary workplaces.

Organisation size plays a modest role in conflict rates. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) reported a slightly higher prevalence (46%) compared to large organisations (42%), with no significant variations across more granular size bands. This suggests that while resources may differ, conflict risks are present across all business scales.

Industry variations are far more pronounced. Wholesale and retail trade leads with 50% of workers experiencing conflict, closely followed by accommodation and food service activities (49%) and arts, entertainment and recreation (49%). At the other end of the spectrum, four sectors fall below the national average: administrative and support service activities (33%), and education, professional scientific and technical activities, and financial and insurance activities (all 36%). These differences likely reflect variations in customer interaction intensity, work pressure and team dynamics across sectors.

Demographic patterns offer further nuance. Regionally, most areas report conflict rates between 39% and 47%, but the North East stands out with a notably higher figure (60%). Age is another differentiator: the 55–65 age group experiences the lowest conflict (32%), while the 25–34 age group has the highest (49%), with 35–44 (46%) and 45–54 (45%) close behind. Gender differences are minimal (43% for men, 45% for women), but disability status emerges as a critical factor: 68% of people whose disability has a major impact on daily life experienced conflict, compared to 49% with a minor impact, 43% with a disability that does not affect daily life, and 41% without a disability.

Ethnicity also shows variation: Black or Black British people report lower conflict rates (34%) than the national average, while other ethnic groups experience similar prevalence. Notably, conflict rates are not linked to income or qualifications, suggesting that workplace conflict cuts across socioeconomic boundaries.

Understanding what people conflict about and with whom is vital for targeted intervention. The most common topic of conflict is “capability and performance” (38%), reflecting disputes over job competence and delivery. This is followed by personal disagreements and relationship issues (33%), bullying, discrimination and harassment (24%), and employment terms and conditions (17%). The least frequent topics are sickness absence (7%) and health and safety (8%), indicating that these areas are generally better managed or less prone
to dispute.

Managers and non-managers share similar conflict priorities, with both ranking capability and performance (40% and 36% respectively) and personal disagreements (34% each) as top concerns. However, non-managers are more likely to report bullying, discrimination and harassment (26% versus 21% for managers), while managers in conflict with direct reports (32% of all managers) face overwhelmingly capability and performance issues (94%), followed by personal disagreements (80%).

Demographic differences in conflict topics are striking. Men are more likely than women to cite capability and performance (44% versus 32%), while women are more prone to report bullying, discrimination and harassment (26% versus 21%). For people with a disability that significantly impacts daily life, conflict rates are higher across multiple areas: bullying, discrimination and harassment (40% versus the national average of 22%), sickness absence (26% versus 6%), employment terms and conditions (26% versus 16%), and misconduct (21% versus 13%). This aligns with Acas’s 2024 research, which found a mismatch between employers’ perceptions (focused on performance/absence) and claimants’ views (linking disputes to disability).

Industry also shapes conflict topics. Manufacturing workers are less likely to report capability and performance issues (28% versus 38%), while wholesale and retail workers face more bullying, discrimination and harassment (32% versus 24%) but fewer personal disagreements (26% versus 33%). Professional, scientific and technical activities see notably higher personal disagreements (56% versus 33%), reflecting the collaborative, relationship-dependent nature of the sector.

Regionally, most areas prioritise capability and performance, but the East Midlands, West Midlands and Scotland report personal disagreements as the top conflict topic. Scotland and the East Midlands also have lower rates of conflict over employment terms and conditions (10% versus 17%), while Wales sees less bullying, discrimination and harassment (13% versus 24%).

When it comes to conflict partners, colleagues within the same organisation (34%) and line managers (32%) are the most common. Direct reports (15%), customers/clients (12%) and external colleagues (5%) follow. Around 27% of workers experience conflict with multiple people, with line managers being the primary party in 45% of these cases. For managers specifically, conflict with colleagues (48%) is most common, followed by their own line manager (33%) and direct reports (32%).

Demographics influence these partnerships too. The 55–65 age group is more likely to conflict with colleagues (31% versus 25% for other age groups). Men are more prone to conflict with colleagues (41% versus 36%) or direct reports (12% versus 9%), while women are more likely to conflict with line managers (35% versus 29%). Disabled people report higher conflict with line managers (38% versus 29% for non-disabled people) but lower rates with colleagues (36% versus 41%) and direct reports (9% versus 12%). SME workers are more likely to conflict with customers/clients (17% versus 11% for large organisations), reflecting their often more direct customer-facing roles.

Resolution Strategies: Informal Action and Outcomes

The survey highlights a clear preference for informal conflict resolution. The most common action is a discussion with one’s manager (45%), followed by an informal conversation with the other party (30%). These methods align with Acas’s emphasis on early, direct engagement to prevent escalation.

Formal processes are far less common: only 9% of respondents filed a formal grievance or complaint, 6% engaged in formal capability or disciplinary procedures, and fewer than 0.5% submitted an employment tribunal claim. Other actions include discussions with HR (13%), leaving the organisation (9%), consulting a union representative (8%) and workplace mediation (2%).

Notably, 19% of respondents took no action—this was more common among those who reported no impact from the conflict (32%) and SME workers (23% versus 15% in large organisations). For managers, inaction is particularly prevalent in conflicts with direct reports: 35% took no action, exceeding both the overall worker average (19%) and managers’ inaction in other conflicts (14%). Acas’s previous research links this to low managerial confidence in handling such disputes.

Resolution outcomes are mixed. Half of respondents reported their conflict was largely or fully resolved (27% fully, 23% largely), while 19% said it was partly resolved. A third (31%) reported the conflict was mainly or completely unresolved (14% mainly, 17% not at all). For those who used informal discussion with the other party, 52% cited this as the most important factor in resolving the conflict, underscoring the value of direct communication.

Managers and non-managers follow similar resolution patterns but with key differences. Managers are more likely to engage their own manager (53% versus 41%) or use informal discussion (41% versus 27%), and less likely to take no action (14% versus 23%). They are also more likely to involve HR (19% versus 10%) or issue disciplinary sanctions (10% versus 4%). For conflicts with direct reports, 98% of managers used informal discussion and 49% involved HR—higher rates than for other conflict types—indicating a recognition of the need for structured handling of subordinate disputes.

The Impact of Conflict: Mental Health and Organisational Costs

The human and business costs of conflict are substantial. The most common impact is mental health-related: 57% of respondents reported stress, anxiety or depression. This aligns with broader national trends: Office for National Statistics data shows economic inactivity due to long-term sickness is at a record high (over 2.5 million people, 31% of all economically inactive individuals), with 53% of this attributed to depression or anxiety in 2023.

Other significant impacts include a drop in motivation or commitment (49%), reduced productivity (25%), sickness absence (10%) and resignation (10%). Only 17% reported no impact. For businesses, these outcomes translate to tangible costs: Acas’s previous research estimated the annual cost of workplace conflict at £28.5 billion, with stress-related productivity losses alone ranging from £590 million to £2.3 billion.

For managers, conflict also demands time: 55% spent a week or less managing their main conflict, with 57% of these spending a day or less. However, 7% spent more than a month on conflict management over the 12-month period, representing a significant drain on leadership resources.

Conclusions and Business Implications

The 2025 survey delivers a clear message: workplace conflict is more prevalent than ever, but its costs are not inevitable. For British businesses, the findings highlight three key priorities.

First, fostering informal resolution is critical. With 75% of respondents using informal methods (discussion with manager or direct conversation) and these approaches proving effective, investing in communication skills and a culture of open dialogue can prevent escalation to costly formal processes. Acas’s early conciliation service already demonstrates this value, with 69% of cases resolved without progressing to tribunal in 2024.

Second, building managerial capability is essential. Managers’ low confidence in handling conflict—evidenced by the 35% who took no action with direct reports—undermines resolution efforts. Acas’s Skilled Managers programme, which emphasises proactive conflict management, offers a model for upskilling leaders to identify and address disputes early.

Third, creating inclusive workplaces is non-negotiable. The high conflict rates among people with disabilities that significantly impact daily life demand targeted action to prevent discrimination and support reasonable adjustments. Businesses must align their performance management and dispute resolution processes with inclusive practices to address the mismatch between employer and disabled employee perspectives.

For Acas, the survey is a foundation for further action. The organisation plans to deepen analysis of the dataset to explore unresolved questions: how to better support disabled workers, why Black and Black British people report lower conflict rates, and how conflict dynamics vary by gender, industry and region. It will also update its 2021 cost of conflict report in 2026 using the 2025 prevalence data.

As Acas enters its next 50 years, the 2025 survey reinforces its role as a vital partner for British businesses. Disagreements in the workplace may be inevitable, but the survey shows that “disagreeing well”—through informal resolution, managerial confidence and inclusive practices—can reduce harm to individuals and costs to organisations. For businesses committed to productivity, wellbeing and retention, addressing workplace conflict is not just a legal or ethical obligation; it is a strategic imperative.

In an era of evolving work patterns and increasing focus on employee wellbeing, the 2025 workplace conflict survey is more than a report—it is a call to action for businesses to prioritise healthy employment relations, equip managers with the tools to resolve disputes, and build workplaces where conflict is managed effectively rather than avoided. The costs of inaction are clear; the solutions, as outlined in Acas’s strategy, are within reach.