“The night shift has left a mess again”: conflict between shifts over one workstation

The scene: a photo of a workstation turns into an accusation

At six in the morning, Aneta arrived at the packing station. There were cartons on the bench, labels were missing and a trolley was blocking the gangway. She said loudly to her colleagues: “The night shift has left a mess again.” A photo of the station went up on the group chat.

The night-shift foreman, Paweł, replied a few minutes later: “Maybe check first why we didn’t get it done? We spent an hour rescuing an urgent order.” Aneta heard an excuse. Paweł felt that nobody appreciated his people’s work. Each shift knew only part of what had happened. Neither had the full picture.

By the afternoon, the dispute was about “the night lot” and “the day lot”, not about a particular trolley or the labels. It wasn’t clear which part of the tidying was required before handing over the station, or whether the unexpected order should have been recorded. The photo taken that morning showed the state of the station, but not the causes. Nobody asked whether there was an up-to-date task list, who was supposed to fill it in and what “station handed over” actually means in practice.

The group chat meant that more people heard about the incident before the two foremen had established the facts. The photo showed a real problem, but the public comment on it put both teams on the defensive. At this point it’s worth halting the exchange of messages: “The station needs sorting out. Let’s first establish what happened during the previous shift and which tasks were mandatory.”

What really happened

The morning shift found the station in a state that made it hard to start work. The night shift had an extra order and may not have managed to complete every task. We don’t yet know whether the rules for handing over the station were clear or whether anyone passed on information about the deviation. Instead of establishing responsibility, employees quickly began attributing traits to entire shifts: “they always”, “you never”. This escalated the conflict and made it harder to own up to any mistake.

The organisational problem has two layers. The first is the missing labels and the blocked gangway, which may require immediate action. The second is the lack of information about how the night shift decided on its priorities. If people don’t have a shared standard for handing over the station, even goodwill won’t be enough. Each crew will regard its own way of working as obvious and put the other’s down to not caring.

Making sense of it: what the research says

Research on organisational justice shows that people react not only to how the workload is shared but also to how decisions are made and explained. If one crew regularly cleans up after the other, the underlying workload problem needs correcting. But if it’s an exceptional stoppage or an extra task, the lack of information can be just as important. A meta-analysis by Tannenbaum and Cerasoli supports the value of structured debriefing, but it doesn’t promise that a single meeting will resolve a dispute that has been going on for months.

The research cited doesn’t prove that a checklist is enough to settle every conflict. Rather, it shows why transparent rules and the chance to discuss a specific incident make cooperation easier. The workload also needs checking: if the night shift regularly gets urgent orders just before the end of the shift, simply asking for more care won’t solve the problem. When judging people, you need to take into account the conditions in which they made their decisions.

How to approach it

First, the station needs to be brought back to a state that allows safe work. Then both foremen should check three things: what the agreed handover standard was, what state the station was in when it was taken over, and whether there were circumstances that justified departing from the rules. Aneta might say: “This morning we couldn’t start work because the gangway was blocked. I need to know what happened and what will be recorded next time.” Paweł: “We had an urgent order and didn’t do all the tidying. I should have warned you.” A joint solution could be a short list of critical tasks and a transparent way of reporting what couldn’t be finished. It’s also worth specifying which items must be done for safety reasons before leaving the station and which can be passed on to the next shift. If the night crew regularly can’t get its work done in time, tightening checks on tidiness alone won’t solve the problem. You need to look at the actual workload on both shifts.

A good standard separates tasks that are mandatory for safety reasons from those that can be recorded and passed on to the next shift. It also needs a single information channel: what wasn’t done, why, what needs doing first and who confirms receipt. That way nobody has to reconstruct events in the morning from gossip, photos and guesswork.

How Aneta and Paweł might talk it through

Aneta could start: “At six the gangway was blocked and there were no labels. We lost time before we could get going with the packing. I want to establish what you had to do last night and whether you knew about these problems.” That’s a description of the impact, not an accusation of laziness. Paweł might reply: “We got an urgent order before the end of the shift. We left some of the tidying, but I didn’t pass that on in the report.”

The key question is: “Which of these tasks must always be closed off, and which need a clear warning to the next shift?” The joint conversation shouldn’t end with a pledge that “we’ll try harder”. What’s needed is a specific agreement on who is responsible for the labels, who puts the trolley away and what a message about unfinished work looks like. If there isn’t enough time to close the shift properly, the foremen should raise the problem with their supervisor together.

A shift handover rule you can check

A short checklist covering the safety of gangways, key materials, unfinished tasks and unusual incidents is all it takes. It should be available to both shifts and updated whenever the process changes. It’s worth agreeing how the handover is confirmed: a single sentence in the system, a short entry in the shift log or a face-to-face conversation, depending on how work is organised.

After a few days, it’s worth reviewing not only cases where the rules were broken but also situations in which the handover worked well. If the same gaps keep appearing, check staffing, the order of tasks and the number of rush orders. Responsibility isn’t about hunting for “the worst shift”, but about creating conditions in which the next crew can start work safely.

A conflict between shifts easily turns into a dispute about people, even though it starts with a single workstation. What helps is a shared handover standard, a record of exceptions and a conversation about the real workload. A photo can document a problem, but it can’t replace an explanation of its causes.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Each foreman can use Em to prepare for the conversation without labelling the other shift. Em will help them separate observation, interpretation and request, and prepare a response to the accusation: “You always leave the work for us.” In the relationship context, Em can take into account differences in directness and in how people react to criticism, where the data is available. In the team context, Em will help formulate a simple rule for flagging exceptions. That way the subject of the meeting is once again the shared workstation, not an opinion about an entire crew.

Before the meeting, Aneta and Paweł can each practise with Em a short opening free of generalisations. They can also ask Em to prepare neutral questions that will help pinpoint the missing information. Once the rules are agreed, Em will help put together a concise message for both crews, so that nobody reads it as one shift being publicly punished. The manager overseeing both shifts can also go through with Em the questions for a short meeting reviewing the first few days of the new rule. Instead of asking who was to blame this time, the manager will ask what information was available in time and where things are still unclear. On that basis, the manager will prepare a concise, shared instruction for handing over the workstation and a way of reporting deviations without publicly shaming employees.