Grievance and Fear in Complaints and Conflict Work: Why Curiosity Matters More Than Labels
- Shiv Martin
- 53 minutes ago
- 6 min read
In complaints handling, conciliation and conflict resolution work, labels can provide comfort and certainty. But curiosity, clear boundaries and procedural fairness are often far more effective tools for de-escalation and sustainable outcomes.
Over the past month, I have spent a significant amount of time delivering workshops on de-escalation, managing challenging and unreasonable interactions, complaints handling and conflict resolution. The participants have included complaints professionals, student support staff, HR practitioners, managers, dispute resolution practitioners and regulatory teams.
One theme keeps appearing. People are looking for certainty.
More specifically, they are looking for ways to understand and explain the behaviours they encounter in their work. When somebody is angry, demanding, hostile, repetitive, resistant to feedback or highly emotional, there is a natural desire to categorise what is happening.
That desire is understandable.
Conflict and complaints work can be emotionally draining. It is difficult to remain patient, compassionate and fair when you are dealing with frustration, criticism and conflict every day. It is even harder when workloads are high and resources are stretched.
What I have noticed, however, is that some of the most popular training, books and conference presentations in this space focus heavily on labels.
Sometimes those labels are clinical. Sometimes they are behavioural. Sometimes they are organisational labels such as “vexatious complainant”, “high-conflict person” or “unreasonable customer”.
These concepts can be useful when applied carefully and thoughtfully. The problem arises when the label becomes more important than the person.
This challenge is particularly relevant in environments dealing with persistent complaints and high-demand stakeholders, which I explore further in my article on Timewasters in Dispute Resolution Systems.
Why labels feel so good
One reason this type of training is popular is because it offers relief.
If somebody’s behaviour can be explained by a category or diagnosis, then the situation suddenly feels less personal. We no longer need to wrestle with uncertainty. We have an explanation.
For professionals working in complaints and dispute resolution, that explanation can feel validating.
It confirms that the behaviour is difficult.
It reassures us that we are not imagining the challenge.
It provides a framework for understanding why somebody is acting the way they are.
The difficulty is that relief and accuracy are not always the same thing.
In my experience, one of the greatest risks in complaints handling and conciliation work is becoming too attached to our own explanation of what is happening. The moment we become certain that we know what kind of person somebody is, we often stop being curious about what is actually driving their behaviour.
This is particularly common in complaints management, conciliation and regulatory dispute resolution environments, where staff are exposed to repeated conflict and emotional intensity.
The people we meet are often having one of their worst days
One of the realities of complaints and conflict work is that we rarely see people at their best.
We meet them when they are frustrated with a decision.
We meet them when they feel ignored.
We meet them when a relationship has broken down.
We meet them when they are worried about their future, their finances, their studies, their reputation or their employment.
In other words, we are seeing a very small slice of somebody’s life.
Yet it can be tempting to make broad conclusions about who they are as a person based on that limited interaction.
I often remind participants in my workshops that the behaviour we are seeing may be real, but it is not necessarily the whole story.
The person who appears aggressive may be frightened.
The person who seems repetitive may feel unheard.
The person who appears unreasonable may be struggling to understand a process that makes perfect sense to us but feels confusing and overwhelming to them.
None of this excuses poor behaviour. It simply reminds us that understanding behaviour and approving of behaviour are not the same thing.
Boundaries matter more than labels
One concern that sometimes arises when I discuss empathy and curiosity is the fear that I am suggesting professionals should simply tolerate unacceptable conduct.
That is not my position.
In fact, one of the strongest messages in my de-escalation training is the importance of clear boundaries.
Professionals should not be expected to tolerate abuse.
They should not be expected to absorb personal attacks.
They should not be expected to become counsellors, psychologists or punching bags.
Healthy boundaries are essential for both staff wellbeing and effective complaint management.
Boundaries are also one of the strongest protective factors against compassion fatigue and burnout in conflict-facing roles.
The key distinction is that boundaries should focus on behaviour rather than identity.
For example, we can say:
“I want to help you resolve this matter, however I cannot continue the conversation if you continue to swear at staff.”
That statement focuses on the behaviour. It identifies a boundary. It explains the consequence. Importantly, it also continues to communicate a willingness to assist.
What it does not do is define the individual by their worst behaviour.
This distinction matters.
When we focus on behaviour, we preserve the possibility of change. When we focus on identity, we often create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Effective de-escalation training teaches staff to separate behaviour from identity while maintaining clear professional boundaries.
Download your Free Quick Guide to De-escalating an Unexpected, Heated Call.
A take away roadmap for unexpected, high emotion conversations.
Inside, you will find three practical frameworks for staying grounded, including example phrases and prompts.
Safety, inclusion and fairness
In my own practice, I frequently return to three principles: safety, inclusion and fairness.
These principles act as a useful filter when responding to challenging behaviour.
Safety asks whether the approach protects the wellbeing of everyone involved, including staff.
Inclusion asks whether we are continuing to recognise the humanity and dignity of the person in front of us.
Fairness asks whether our decisions remain grounded in evidence, policy and procedural fairness rather than assumptions and stereotypes.
I have found that these principles are particularly valuable when emotions are high.
They help us avoid becoming reactive. They encourage us to remain focused on the purpose of our role. Most importantly, they remind us that our responsibility is not to diagnose people. Our responsibility is to manage behaviour, resolve issues where possible and ensure fair processes.
The politics of grievance and fear
I think there is a broader lesson here.
Across the world, grievance and fear have become powerful political tools. When people are overwhelmed, uncertain or under pressure, there is comfort in simple explanations. There is comfort in being told who is responsible for our problems. There is comfort in dividing the world into heroes and villains.
The same dynamic can emerge in organisations. When teams are dealing with difficult complaints, challenging customers or persistent conflict, it can be tempting to develop narratives about the people creating those difficulties.
Those narratives often feel satisfying because they validate our experience. The risk is that they can also narrow our thinking. The more we view people through the lens of grievance and fear, the less able we become to identify opportunities for understanding, influence and resolution. This does not make our work easier. It simply makes our work less effective.
Curiosity is still the most important de-escalation skill
After more than a decade working as a mediator, conciliator, decision-maker and trainer, I have become increasingly convinced that curiosity remains one of the most important professional skills in conflict resolution.
Curiosity does not mean agreeing.
Curiosity does not mean abandoning boundaries.
Curiosity does not mean tolerating harmful behaviour.
What it means is resisting the urge to reach conclusions too quickly. It means continuing to ask what might be driving the behaviour. It means recognising that people are often more complicated than the labels we attach to them. And it means remembering that the goal of complaints handling, conciliation and dispute resolution is not to prove that somebody is difficult. The goal is to understand enough about the situation to move it forward safely, fairly and constructively.
The longer I work in this field, the more I believe that grievance and fear are poor foundations for good decision-making. They may offer certainty. They may even provide temporary comfort.
Across complaints handling, conciliation, mediation and workplace conflict resolution, curiosity, fairness and clear boundaries remain the most powerful tools available to practitioners working in conflict every day.
Motivational interviewing offers another practical framework for maintaining curiosity while supporting accountability and behaviour change.
Learn Practical Strategies for Managing Challenging and Unreasonable Interactions
If your team regularly deals with emotionally heightened behaviour, persistent complaints, difficult conversations or conflict, our Managing Challenging and Unreasonable Interactions workshop provides practical tools to help staff respond with confidence.
Participants learn how to de-escalate conflict, set effective boundaries, manage unreasonable conduct, maintain procedural fairness and protect their own wellbeing while continuing to provide high-quality service.
The workshop is available as both an in-house program and a public course and is designed for complaints teams, dispute resolution practitioners, HR professionals, managers, regulators, ombudsman schemes and frontline service staff.
Because managing challenging behaviour is not about becoming tougher. It is about becoming more skilled.
Hi, I’m Shiv Martin. I’m a nationally accredited mediator, lawyer, conciliator, and conflict management specialist with over a decade of experience working across government, business, and community settings. I support teams to navigate complex and emotionally charged situations through mediation and conciliation, conflict skills training, facilitation, and practical advice on policies and processes. My approach is grounded in law, psychology, and real-world dispute resolution, with a strong focus on clarity, fairness, and workable outcomes.
If you’d like to talk about how we can help you or your organisation, you can get in touch here: 👉 Contact us
Comments