Two colleagues describe the same handover differently. One says, “I asked you to finish it.” The other says, “I agreed to check one detail, not take over the task.” A practice owner needs to respond, but asking both people to get along does not establish what happened or decide who will handle the work now.

Begin with a specific event. Separate what can be checked from what each person reports and what remains disputed. Then make the operational decision that management is responsible for making. Colleagues do not have to share one account of the past before the practice can clarify the next task, but a new arrangement must not be presented as proof that the original concern has been resolved.

1. Choose an appropriate way to hear the concern

Find out what needs attention before arranging a joint conversation. A routine disagreement about an administrative handover is different from a report of harassment, intimidation, discrimination or a safety concern. Use the appropriate existing process and responsible support for those matters. An informal discussion must not replace that process, delay an urgent response or require someone to confront another person as the price of being heard.

For an ordinary work disagreement, separate initial conversations may help establish the question and whether meeting together is appropriate. Explain the purpose, what you will record and who may need relevant information. Do not promise absolute secrecy. Arrange a private place and realistic time, with cover for duties where necessary. A discussion within earshot of patients or colleagues is not an adequate substitute.

Ask what the employee wants the owner to understand and whether any work is still waiting. Staff can raise a concern even when the details are incomplete. If a detail needs checking, identify it without treating an incomplete recollection as evidence of dishonesty.

If the concern involves your own conduct or decision, acknowledge that involvement and identify an appropriate alternative route or person where needed. Do not appoint yourself the sole judge of a complaint about yourself. Offering a conversation is not permission to search private messages, question unrelated colleagues or require personal disclosures.

2. Put one handover on the table

Consider a wholly fictional training exercise about reserving a room for an internal staff planning meeting. It involves no patient appointments, clinical resources, actual employee records or real booking action. Colleague A, working the morning shift, says they passed responsibility for the room confirmation to colleague B on the afternoon shift. B says they only offered to ask whether the room was available. Both believe the other left the task unfinished.

For this exercise, the dummy request sheet contains “Room: check with manager,” with no named person responsible for obtaining confirmation. Its status is pending. A separate dummy note records that the manager still needs to choose between two meeting times. These invented records establish what the exercise documents say; they do not establish exactly what either colleague heard during the conversation.

Keep three kinds of statement distinct:

“The request sheet has no named owner” is different from “B deliberately ignored the request.” The first is an observation about this fictional sheet; the second assigns a motive the sheet cannot show. Similarly, a message marked as sent does not prove that its recipient read and accepted a handover. Do not ask the technology to establish more than it records.

Trace the task before the handover, what was communicated, any response, the instructions available then and what happened next. If a broader pattern needs attention, define and handle that separately rather than drawing every past disagreement into this conversation.

3. Hear each account without demanding agreement

Ask open, concrete questions. “What did you understand you were taking on?” is different from “Why did you refuse to help?” Ask what information or instruction informed that understanding. Give each person an opportunity to correct your summary and respond to relevant points, using a process suited to the concern.

In the fictional exercise, the owner might summarise A's account: “You say you asked B to obtain confirmation, and you understood that they had accepted that task. Is that accurate?” For B: “You say you agreed to check availability, while responsibility for confirmation was not agreed. Have I represented that correctly?” Each summary describes an account; neither decides which account is established.

Acknowledging the effect of a disagreement does not require endorsing an accusation. “You were left uncertain about whether to continue the task” identifies a work difficulty. “Your colleague always leaves you to do everything” adds a conclusion that has not been checked. Avoid reassuring one employee by making an unsupported judgement about another.

If a joint discussion is appropriate, agree its purpose and how each person will be heard. A speaker can finish a relevant explanation without the conversation becoming an unrestricted monologue. Invite clarification of a particular point; do not ask the team to vote on whose account sounds more convincing. Seniority, confidence or a quieter manner does not settle the facts.

It may remain unclear whether the exact words amounted to a transfer of responsibility. Record that uncertainty honestly. Do not require a forced apology, a declaration that everyone agrees or a personal explanation to produce a neat ending. Equally, a disputed account is not a reason to dismiss a concern that requires further handling.

4. Change the conversation when it stops being useful

A pause is an option when people are talking over each other, cannot continue or ask for time. Describe the observable difficulty and offer a workable next step. “We are interrupting each other, and I cannot accurately record both accounts. Let us pause and agree how to continue” is clearer than diagnosing someone as defensive or saying that their expression reveals their real motive.

Do not promise that one reassuring sentence will make the conversation safe or productive. Check what is needed: a break, separate follow-up, a written account through an appropriate route or another responsible person. If the matter now belongs in a different process, explain the change. A joint meeting is a format, not an outcome that must be achieved.

When stating the purpose, be truthful about it. “We need to understand this handover and decide who handles the pending task” is a defined aim. Do not say that no performance or conduct issue is involved if that has not been established, or hide a decision already made behind an invitation to discuss. Explain what is open, what is decided and who holds the relevant authority.

A pause, a short answer or silence does not establish agreement or hostility. Ask for the work information this review needs; private circumstances need not become an explanation for the dispute.

5. Put the owner's part of the problem into the record

Return to the fictional room request. The manager's choice of meeting time is still pending. That is a management decision, not something the two colleagues can resolve by communicating more warmly. The owner should check whether the choice was requested, what answer was given and whether earlier instructions conflict with the current expectation.

If the exercise establishes that the owner has not made the necessary decision, the owner can say: “The time choice is mine, and I have not completed it. I need to settle that before either of you can obtain the room confirmation.” This acknowledges a defined contribution to the work problem without claiming that it explains every disagreement between the colleagues.

Criticism of the manager deserves the same careful handling as criticism of a colleague. If someone says the owner changes instructions without telling the next shift, ask for the relevant sequence and check it. Do not demand gratitude for listening or turn the discussion into a defence of how busy management is. Where an account is inaccurate, explain the checked information and allow correction; where it is accurate, identify the decision or repair management owes.

Within the manager's actual authority, explain who will decide the work arrangement after considering practical constraints. Give the reason for the decision and a route for unresolved concerns; naming a decision maker does not guarantee agreement.

6. Close with a feasible action and an honest review

Keep the immediate work arrangement separate from findings about the disputed handover. In the fictional exercise, the manager must first confirm the meeting time. An authorised colleague can then take responsibility for checking the room and recording the actual response. Identify that person, the information they need, realistic working time and the next update. Do not assign a colleague an extra task merely because they raised the concern.

A short record can distinguish: the concern raised; information checked; each relevant account; points still disputed; the management decision; the action and responsible person; and when its completion will be reviewed. Record agreement where it exists and disagreement where it remains. Let people flag an inaccurate summary through the appropriate route. Store only necessary information with appropriate access, rather than circulating a named conflict narrative as a team lesson.

For the next handover, the team might propose an explicit distinction between “asked to check availability” and “responsible for obtaining confirmation.” Test that wording with dummy requests before deciding whether to use it. Check that the responsible person has accepted the assigned work and has the information and authority to do it. A new field on a sheet cannot supply missing time, a management decision or appropriate supervision.

At the agreed review, ask what actually happened. Was the manager's decision given? Was the responsibility clear? Was the promised update provided? What remains unresolved about the concern itself? A completed room reservation does not prove that a relationship is repaired, and a quiet week does not establish that the issue has disappeared. If the arrangement was not carried out, examine that gap and decide the next response.

This exercise concerns administrative work. Existing patient-safety and clinical routes, professional roles and necessary checks remain in place. When an administrative disagreement affects patient information or contact, assign the actual response through the practice's established process. Patients retain the choice to ask about affordability, take time, decline or reschedule; resolving a staff dispute must not turn a patient decision into a target.

The owner need not produce an instant verdict or a cheerful reconciliation. The practical job is to hear the concern through an appropriate route, distinguish evidence from accounts and assumptions, address management's responsibilities, and check that the next action is possible and carried out. That gives the team a clear way forward without rewriting an unresolved history as agreement.