In the last few years, the term “cancel culture” has become quite common.

It seems to have originated in the late 2010s to describe ostracizing or boycotting an individual or company thought to have behaved in an unacceptable manner. The term became popular on social media and used by celebrities and political figures. For example, Bud Light experienced a canceling boycott as a result of its hiring of a transgender TikTok personality.

Some argue the act of canceling is effective because it serves as a modern form of publicly shaming counterproductive individuals and corporations. To the contrary, others argue canceling is tyranny that denies the target any opportunity for defense or recourse.

Whether it’s the centuries-old practice of shaming or modern-day canceling, the intent is typically dismissive and limits listening to each other.

Early in the 20th century “study circles” became popular in Sweden allowing citizens to fully participate in community and national dialogues. In these designated groups people with various perspectives on issues express their opinions and listen to understand opposing perspectives. Everyone’s view must be presented and all are heard, but personal attacks are not permitted throughout the sessions. If anyone feels offended by something said or done they are encouraged to explain how it affected them. Rather than listening to find flaws and develop arguments, people try to understand the other position.

Rather than listening to find flaws and develop arguments, people in study circles try to understand the other position.

Being heard reduces tensions and divisions; Canceling prevents such opportunities.

Conflicts in the workplace are inevitable, but should managers get involved in inter-personal disagreements among employees?

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) is an organization of human resource professionals from more than 120 countries. Its 2024 report of over 5,000 workers in the U.K. revealed several significant insights:

• Top management tends to think of conflict management in terms of formal resolution procedures, which they believe to be effective.

• In reality, very few employees actually escalate conflicts to any formal resolution procedure.

• In fact, the most common response to conflict by almost half of respondents was simply to “let it go” unresolved.

•. Those who “let conflicts go” unresolved reported feeling much less satisfied with their job plus negative impacts on their mental and physical health.

•. Approximately 10% said they were looking for another job because of conflicts in the workplace.

There is no reason to believe the results would be significantly different in the U.S. and Canada.

A landmark study of workers commissioned some 16 years earlier by CPP, Inc., in the United States, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, asked what managers could do to resolve conflicts. Fewer than 10 felt managers should do nothing. More than 40% agreed managers should “have more informal one-to-one conversations with people they manage” and “act as mediators when conflict develops.”