Preventing workplace altercations
through an improved code of conduct
Over time, the general atmosphere
will noticeably improve and employee
satisfaction and morale increase.
By Sarah Warhaftig, J.D., CRM
John, the risk manager for an organization, has become increasingly concerned about a rise in forceful verbal confrontations in the office. While none of these incidents has turned physical, several have come close—especially because they revolve around contentious, non-work topics. John recognizes that employees are under significant stress, often from circumstances he cannot fully know.
Realizing that the existing policies do not adequately address the escalating tension, John initiates a review with Human Resources and Legal to determine what improvements are needed to reduce the risk of workplace altercations.
Part I: The triggering incident
During a busy afternoon in the open workspace, two employees—Max and Priya—begin arguing loudly about a controversial news event. Their raised voices disrupt several co-workers, who visibly stop working and appear uncomfortable. The situation intensifies when Max makes a sarcastic comment; Priya reacts by raising her voice further. John intervenes before the argument becomes physical.
Later discussions reveal that both employees felt provoked, but they believed they had not violated any company policy. They had not targeted a protected class (relevant to the anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies) and had not misused company resources or revealed confidential information (topics covered in the Code of Conduct).
This exposes a major gap: The organization has no policy governing tone, civility, or respectful communication when disagreements arise.
Part II: Policy gaps identified
- Existing policies don’t fit the behavior. The anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies require specific criteria (e.g., actions against a protected class), making them difficult to apply in general conflict-based altercations. John also finds that no one has filed complaints despite the deteriorating atmosphere.
- The current Code of Conduct focuses on administrative issues. The Code outlines key topics such as:
- Balanced and accurate reporting
- Fair and unbiased presentation of information
- Conflicts of interest
- Entertainment and gift rules
- Confidentiality
- Reporting questionable or illegal activities
- Ethical obligations beyond legal compliance
However, none of these areas address interpersonal communication, civility expectations, or how to handle emotionally charged non-work discussions—all of which are the root causes of the conflicts.
- No framework for conflict de-escalation. There is no guidance on when to pause, seek mediation, or involve a supervisor.
Part III: The revision initiative
Recognizing the limitations of the existing Code, John leads a collaborative effort with Human Resources and Legal to propose clear, structured improvements.
- Civility and respect standards. A new section outlines expectations for:
- Professional tone
- Reasonable volume
- Respectful nonverbal cues
- Constructive dialogue
This expands on the Code’s current “fair and unbiased presentation of information” clause.
- Explicit prohibition of aggressive verbal conduct. The revised Code lists unacceptable behaviors such as:
- Shouting
- Intimidation
- Hostile gestures
- Confrontational body language
- Guidelines for discussing sensitive non-work topics. Although the Code already covers reporting questionable activities, it previously lacked guidance for navigating emotionally charged conversations. The new section clarifies when such discussions are appropriate and how to keep them respectful.
- Conflict de-escalation pathway. The update adds structured guidance on:
- When to pause a conversation
- How to request mediation
- When to involve supervisors
Organizational rollout
John and his team present the revised Code of Conduct to senior management for review and sign off. They also request a letter of support from the CEO and Board to use when rolling out the revised Code. Once that is completed, John works with Human Resources to set up a training schedule for all levels of the organization.
They will start with company management and take the opportunity to explain specifically why the change was needed and what they hope it will accomplish in terms of improving workplace morale and the environment in general. They will discuss how managers can model civility to reinforce the expectations outlined in the Code.
The team then pairs the balance of the rollout with communications skills workshops and conflict management training. The teams will practice a series of roleplays that highlight each of the new policies. Employees will discuss their reactions and how they can model and support the desired behaviors.
In planning for the sessions, John and the team consider what additional training or resources could further strengthen workplace culture. Human Resources suggests training on emotional quotient for managers and front-line supervisors.
Part IV: The improved scenario
A few weeks later, another disagreement emerges between two employees. Unlike past incidents, one of the employees references the new Code of Conduct and politely asks to pause the conversation. They agree to meet later with a supervisor present. Human Resources logs this as a successful early conflict de escalation. Over time, the general atmosphere will noticeably improve and employee satisfaction and morale increase.
Final thoughts
Does your team work from an office? There are multiple types of workplaces where these dynamics can be found. What is the general atmosphere compared to the recent past? If it has deteriorated, can you determine a cause in the work environment? Can that be controlled or improved? Is the deterioration due to external factors over which the organization has no control? Depending on your role in the organization, can you or will you work as an agent for positive change? Who would you need to partner with?
Perhaps you are lucky to report no negative change. Bravo! That can be accomplished only through deliberate efforts and a shared purpose. If things are improving or have improved, congratulations to all teams involved.
The author
Sarah J. Warhaftig, J.D., CRM, is the academic director of risk management programs at Risk & Insurance Education Alliance. She is a graduate of Tulane University and Rutgers Law School. Sarah has served as a faculty member for Certified Risk Manager designation programs for over 20 years.
