Managing Conflict PDF

MANAGING CONFLICT WHAT IS EMPLOYEE RELATIONS? Employee relations is the common title for the industrial relations function within personnel management. “The term underlines the fact that industrial relations is not confined to the study of trade unions but embraces the broad pattern of employee m...

MANAGING CONFLICT WHAT IS EMPLOYEE RELATIONS? Employee relations is the common title for the industrial relations function within personnel management. “The term underlines the fact that industrial relations is not confined to the study of trade unions but embraces the broad pattern of employee management, including systems of direct communication and employee involvement that target the individual worker.” (Heery & Noon, 2001). MANAGERIAL STRATEGIES AND THE E.R. Early industrialisation - Despotic control and paternalism (unitarist) 1900 – Direct control or scientific management or variants (unitarist) 1930s – Human relations (unitarist) 1945 – Regulated strategy or negotiated order (pluralist) 1950s – Neo-human relations (pluralism remains) 1980s – Responsible Autonomy or HRM practice ( an attempt to shift back to unitaristm, however pluralism has a strong foothold in many organisations). DIFFERENT VIEWS ON PEOPLE IN ORGANISATIONS Accounting – Employees are costly factors of production on the balance sheet. Economics – Work is an economic transaction; Labour is a commodity with the price set by market forces. Human Resource Management – Employees are resources to be used to maximise profits. In all these disciplines debates over work issues such as job security, work-life balance, equality, minimum wages, collective bargaining rights, and so on... are all reduced to questions of competitiveness, productivity and labour cost i.e. EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ALSO INCLUDES ‘EQUITY’ AND ‘FAIRNESS’ ‘A fair days pay for a fair days work’? For economics, the market rewards people for what they are worth (i.e. their productivity)  The low-paid are badly paid, not because they are paid less than they are worth, but because they are worth appallingly little (Hicks, 1963). But, if we apply the logic that people get paid what they are worth to a contemporary issue…… FOR EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ‘Equity’ is important:  Job and income security  Minimum wages and a ‘living wage’  Equal pay for men and women for work of equal value  Freedom of association to join a union and be represented by a union in collective bargaining if a worker so wishes  Family-friendly policies  Fair treatment  Worker participation in decisions that affect them. ‘Efficiency’ is also important  The right of owners to make a profit from a successful business  The need for firms to be competitive, to create wealth, to SO, EMPLOYEE RELATIONS IS ABOUT… …. the balancing of competing and legitimate interests  A certain level of conflict of interest is inherent in all employment relationships  The employment relationship is one of both co- operation and conflict Subject Material is contentious – no ‘one right answer’ – about examining different perspectives and arriving at a nuanced position Bias – we all have it. Be aware of it. Challenge your own views. But an informed and intelligent opinion is good! EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP An employer buys the time when we are at work (our ‘effort’ in the wage–effort bargain) – and, over that period, they can then require us to comply with ‘reasonable’ instructions, although the nature of what is reasonable may be open to question. The boundaries around the wage–effort bargain are continually shifting and can be seen as a ‘frontier of control’. At its best a long-term employment relationship can lead to high levels of trust on both sides. WITHIN THE E.R. THERE ARE DIFFERING WANTS What employers What employees want: want: Increase market share; Earn best possible wage; Acceptable return on profit; Secure and satisfying job; Conduct an efficient organisation; To develop a career; Comply with legislation; To be in a satisfying work group. Satisfy community service obligations. SOURCES OF CONFLICT IN THE E.R. According to Watson (1986) organisations are highly fragile sets of co-operative arrangements tentatively agreed by individuals and groups who have a variety of social, political and economic interests. D’Art & Turner (2002) state that the four possible sources of conflict in the employment relationship are: 1. The wage bargain 2. The effort bargain 3. Asymmetrical power and the challenge to managerial legitimacy 4. The duality of the labour commodity They note that a focus on the above characterises the employment relationship in purely conflictual terms – management control versus worker resistance. Yet strikes, the most dramatic manifestation of such conflict, are comparatively rare events in most organisations. INDIVIDUAL CONFLICT IN WORK Can take many forms: - Grievances - Absenteeism - Reduced productivity - Theft Etc. COLLECTIVE CONFLICT AT WORK 250 Numbers of Strikes 200 150 100 50 0 23 27 31 35 39 43 47 51 55 59 63 67 71 75 79 83 87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 3000 2500 Working Days Lost Due to Strikes per 1000 employees 2000 1500 1000 500 Source: Central Statistics Office 0 23 27 31 35 39 43 47 51 55 59 63 67 71 75 79 83 87 91 95 99 03 07 11 15 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 APPROACHES TO EMPLOYEE RELATIONS To understand and interpret employee relations in the 21st century requires an analysis guided by theoretical insights. Adam & Meitz (1993: p. 12) state that by choosing a theory, one organises reality. Rose (2001) states that frames of reference of employment relations are important because they are extremely valuable in explaining the actions, statements and behaviours of employees and trade unionists. Fox (1966) suggests that a manager’s frame of reference is important because: (i) It determines how the management expect people to behave and how they think they should behave (i.e. values and beliefs) (ii) It determines management’s reactions to actual behaviour (i.e. management practice) (iii) It shapes the methods that management choose when they wish to change the behaviour of people at work (e.g. strategies and policies) UNITARIST Main characteristics Fox (1966) Interests– in common defines Employees part of a unified team all pursuing the unitarism as same goals thinking of the Single source of authority, i.e. Management organisation Conflict – as all are in pursuit of same goal, conflict is “as a team irrational – poor communication or trouble unified by a makers common Unions – third party presence is viewed as intrusive – purpose” – so no place for trade unions the success of the Management strategy – gain commitment through organisation modern HRM, or control via authoritarianism Role of government – minimal role. Market capitalism CRITIQUE OF UNITARISM Strengths  Explains the views and practices of many managers and underpins much HRM literature  May be applicable in small family businesses Limitations  Unrealistic view of conflict (pluralist and Marxist critique)  Absenteeism, turnover, LRC, Inspectorate  People have a range of motivations and conflict will always co-exist with cooperation  Wishful thinking (ideology) rather than a reflection of reality Sees members as a team (Blyton & Turnball, 2004) Managers believe they have the right to manage (Edwards, 2003) Members work in harmony and co-operation (Rose, 2008) Conflict only occurs out of misunderstanding or mischief (Edwards, 2003) No need for interference from third parties such as trade SOCIAL UNREST Rise in working-class consciousness Worker-led protests  ‘Match girls’ strike 1888  Great London dock strike 1889  Dublin lockout 1913 – Jim Larkin  Violence and retaliation on both sides not uncommon Growth in unionisation  Early unions were craft based but then you see the growth of general unions of unskilled workers The fundamental cause of disputes between employers and employed is to be found, we believe, in the unsatisfactory position occupied by the wage-earning class…. With economic conditions such as we have described…the relations between employers and employed cannot, in our view, fail to be unsatisfactory. Strikes, and other signs of resistance on the part of the wage-earners, however inconvenient they may be in themselves, are symptomatic of a discontent with existing social conditions. (The Minority Report of the PLURALIST Main characteristics According to Interests – Employers and employees are sectional groups Fox (1966) with common and divergent interests plurarism Conflict is inevitable and normal.... Mediated: views an through compromise and making accommodations organisation through bargaining, institutional structures and regulation like “a “the difference between the parties are not so wide or miniature democratic fundamental as to be unbridgeable” (Fox, 1966) state, Unions are recognised as legitimate representatives of composed employee interests of sectional  A counterbalance to the power of management groups with Management strategy – manage conflicting interests divergent  “gain control by sharing it” (Flanders, 1970) interests, Role of government – provide institutional framework and over which regulation to balance the uneven power relationship managers  Institutional and regulatory pluralism seek to maintain CRITIQUE OF PLURALISM Strengths  More realistic view of conflict  acknowledges conflict AND co-operation  compromise, consultation and negotiation better than unilateral imposition of one party’s interests  explains ER in many industrialised nations Limitations  focus on managing conflict can ignore underlying causes (radical critique)  providing outlets for conflict may encourage conflict (unitarist critique) (weak argument)  Elements of pluralism without unions?  Purcell critical of the way Fox fails to distinguish between management’s policy towards unions and their policy towards direct relations with employees. ‘Augmented pluralism’ (Brown) – Regulation Management understand that employees may have different interests (Legge, 2005). Conflict is accepted as legitimate and can be managed instead of avoided through negotiations and union consultation (Edwards, 2003). The difference between the parties are not so wide or fundamental as to be unbridgeable (Fox, 1966). There is an inequality of bargaining power so trade unions are necessary to provide a counterbalance to the significantly greater power of the employers (Hyman, 1989). RADICAL Main characteristics Interests – completely incompatible Radicals argue that there is Conflict – arises from the disparity, distribution and access an inherent to economic power between those who own capital and and those who supply labour irreconcilable Capital owns the means of production and extracts conflict of surplus value from labour. interest between Unions – should challenge managerial control and be ‘capital’ and vehicles for radical social change, but just end up ‘labour’. reinforcing managerial legitimacy and the unequal systems Radicals ask of production deeper questions Management Strategy (‘capital’) – exploit workers and about who has use them as dehumanised factors of production power, who makes the Role of government – sides with the powerful (capital) to rules, who are maintain the unequal relationship the winners and losers of CRITIQUE OF RADICAL/MARXISM Strengths  addresses underlying causes of conflict  draws attention to the inequalities which still exist  may influence pluralist institutions & rules rather than achieve radical change  useful as an analytical tool (e.g. power of MNCs) Limitations  overstates conflict of interest  overly focused on exploitation  fails to see positive aspects of management and capital  ORGANISATIONAL CONFLICT Conflict can be related to power and politics in organisations. Conflict can be positive or negative. It can be defined as “behaviour intended to obstruct the achievement of some other person’s goals” (Mullins, 2010). Conflict is based on incompatibility of goals and arises from opposing behaviours. It can be viewed at individual, group, or organisational levels. Ackroyd & Thompson (2003) use the term ‘organisational misbehaviour’ to refer to anything you do at work which you are not supposed to do. Within organisations management establish boundaries that distinguish acceptable and non- acceptable behaviour from employees. The actions of employees are then judged as falling one side or the other of these boundaries. Common definitions of conflict tend to be associated with negative features and situations which give rise to inefficiency, ineffectiveness, or dysfunctional consequences. The traditional view of conflict is that it is bad for organisations. Conflict is perceived as disruptive and unnatural and represent a form of deviant behaviour that should be controlled and changed. FOUR CONTRASTING VIEWS OF CONFLICT Conflict can be defined as “a process which begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something the first party cares about.” Buchanan and Huczynski (2004, p. 791) Both organisations and the people in them can have different frames of reference that condition how they perceive conflict and also how they consider conflicts should be addressed. The three frames of reference have been identified (Fox, 1973) Unitarist, Pluralist, and Radical. A more recent view of conflict includes the Interactionist perspective. Destructive conflict needs to be managed to reduce, or avoid, its impact on the morale, motivation, performance and public image, both of the organisation as a whole and of the people who form it. UNITARIST The natural state of the organisation is viewed as an integrated, co-operative and harmonious whole. Everyone is working together n suppor to f the leader and striving to meet a common goal. There is an image of the organisation as a team with a common source of loyalty and one focus of effort. Unitarists promote harmony as a virtue and seek to avoid conflict, which they see as bad, disrupting the harmony of the organisation and the workforce. When Fox first coined the terms he perceived that pluralism reflected the true nature of organisations and dismissed unitarism as wishful thinking which can ‘distort reality and thereby prejudice solutions (1974: 280-281). PLURALIST Pluralists acknowledge that co-operation and harmony can exist however they also see conflict as natural in an organisation, as different groups have different needs, aims and interests. Because conflict is a natural process, it is a sign of a healthy organisation rather than as something to be avoided. Their basis is that organisations are made up of powerful and competing sub-groups with their own legitimate loyalties, objectives and leaders. They recognise that conflict in organisations requires careful handling and attempts to reconcile rival interests. RADICAL Radicals see conflict as a political process that is a natural outcome of the capitalist system, and so can only be addressed through fundamental changes in the ownership of the means of production — the traditional Marxist view of organisation. In everyday life we can gain an insight into a person’s framework through the words they use to describe their organisation — “we” and “us” indicate people with a generally unitarist, or possibly interactionist, frame of reference, whereas “it”, “they” and “them” may imply a pluralist or radical perspective (Rousseau, 1999). INTERACTIONIST A more recent view of conflict is the Interactionist perspective. Interactionists go one step further than pluralists, arguing that conflict is a driver of effectiveness and that, without conflict, organisations will be unable to perform to best effect. This approach encourages a minimum amount of conflict in a group in order to encourage self-criticism, change and innovation, and to help prevent apathy or too great a tolerance for harmony and the status quo. They see that conflict per se in not necessarily good or bad, rather it is an inevitable feature of organisational life and should be judged in terms of its effect on performance. Even if, they argue, organisations take great care to try an avoid conflict it will still occur. Conflict will continue to emerge despite management attempts to suppress it. Townsend (1985) sees conflict as a sign of a healthy organisation – up to a point…”a good manager doesn’t try to eliminate conflict; he tries to keep it from wasting the energies of his people…if you’re the boss and people fight you openly when they think you’re wrong – that’s healthy...keep the conflict eyeball to eyeball” (p. 39) Robbins (2005) see conflict as a product of perception. CONFLICT AND CO- OPERATION The relatively successful maintenance of order and stability within organisations which has its roots in the complex paradoxical nature of the employment relationship that comprises elements of conflict and co-operation and also elements of dissent and accommodation (D’Art & Turner 2002). Managers pursue control and they must also simultaneously attempt to engage employees. At the same time employees have an economic interdependence on employers. The above interplay of antagonism and co-operation creates a dynamic tension in the employment relationship. Consequently management and workers are locked into a relationship that is one of both structured antagonism and calculative co-operation (Edwards 1995). SOURCES OF CONFLICT 1. Wages (the attempt to control unit labour costs through controlling wages and fringe benefits and raising productivity). If an organisation is profitable, how are the profits to be distributed? - channelled into dividends for the shareholder; pay rises for the workers; long-term investment for the company. 2. Working Time: Employers want work done at a certain time; workers want flexibility – how do you square that circle? 3. Employment Security: How do you balance the need of the organisation to have a flexible labour force with the needs of the individual to have security in their employment. There is an inherent ‘structured antagonism’ (Edwards 1986, 2008) within the employment relationship, or an underlying conflict, between workers and employers that always has the potential to erupt, even though most of the time things run along perfectly well, with workers carrying out their tasks on time as best they can. PATTERNS OF CONFLICT IN ORGANISATIONS 1 2 4 3  ORGANISED INDIVIDUAL In the top-left hand corner, organised individual forms of conflict include lodging a complaint with your line manager, which is, after all, an expression of resistance to a decision, but just on your own account and through a formal company procedure, which makes it organised. Grievances and appeals may be seen the same way. If, for example, you’ve been passed over for promotion, you might lodge a grievance because you think you’ve been discriminated against on the grounds of gender or race. Or you might take legal action through an employment tribunal, as an individual. If you’ve been unfairly dismissed, maybe you think you’ve got a case for an employment tribunal. So all these cases are organised, but they are individual, and so contrast with collectively organised cases. Both forms of organised conflict – that is, collective and individual taken together – may be referred to as disputes, in contrast to the second pair, the unorganised forms, which are more informal and spontaneous.  ORGANISED COLLECTIVE Starting in the top-right hand corner, strikes are organised, generally by trade unions, and they are clearly collective in that they involve groups of workers. Workers may go on strike in favour of a better pay deal or against the introduction of an unwelcome shift system or other threats to established work practices. Strikes are not the only form of organised, collective action.  Working-to-rule involves workers doing absolutely everything by the rulebook, which slows everything down because rules are frequently broken just to keep production moving more smoothly.  Going slow involves workers deliberately slowing down the pace of work in order to hinder production.  Overtime bans involve just that – refusal to work overtime, which, in some industries, can be extremely significant.  Banning rest day working, and not working on Sundays, can also be very disruptive for some industries.  Workers may also resolve not to co-operate with management instructions, and even engage in sabotage on an organised basis. These are all overt forms of resistance, as they  UNORGANISED INDIVIDUAL The bottom left-hand corner, which covers unorganised and individual conflict, includes an amorphous group of forms of resistance, which are particularly interesting because they often go unnoticed, and often deliberately so because workers don’t want to bring attention to their misbehaviour or resistance. These forms are often spontaneous, and include the following (listed in no particular order):  Absenteeism Malingering Bad time-keeping  Time wasting Working without enthusiasm  Joking about or giving your manager a nickname  Proneness to accidents Pilfering Online dissent  Sabotage Quitting and turnover.  UNORGANISED COLLECTIVE In the bottom right-hand corner, on a collective or mass basis, if all these things on the left-hand side become endemic, they are going to lead to low morale across the whole workplace or even across the whole company and hence to poor cooperation. So, if allowed to spread, these forms of unorganised, individual conflict can soon become very serious for the organisation and need to be controlled (Richards, 2008a). FRONTIER OF CONTROL These very disparate forms of resistance share a feature in common: they mostly involve ways in which workers appropriate elements or factors that should belong to the employer (Ackroyd and Thompson, 1999).  the effort that should be for the employer in the wage–effort bargain, the work you should be putting in, you reappropriate for yourself by restricting output, by not giving your best effort or by bargaining over that effort, or maybe even by wrecking it through sabotage e.g. time wasting, absenteeism and turnover are all ways in which you appropriate the time of your employer:  you may appropriate the product of your effort, which is actually your employer’s. After all, you are engaged to produce that product, but you can appropriate it for yourself – by pilfering, or by fiddling your expenses, or indeed, by theft. Employers’ fear of theft is not so unusual - Amazon, workers have to pass through airport security systems that detect whether they have stolen anything.  the third kind of appropriation, which is more subtle and sophisticated, involves identity, which comes back to our earlier discussion (see Chapter 3) on whether labour is just a commodity or not: we argued that no, it isn’t, because labour – or labour power – cannot be separated from the person who is actually delivering it. Employers sometimes like to believe that you somehow belong to the company in one way or another during the time you’re at work – you’re a ‘company person’ in that you embody the values, roles, norms and standards of the organisation. The arena of conflict takes place within the wage– effort bargain, with employers and unions contesting the frontier of control. We must acknowledge that conflicts of interest within the wage–effort bargain are legitimate, and encroachments by managers may lead to resistance on the part of workers, although the forms they take are diverse: they may be organised or unorganised, collective or individual. While defining these forms may sometimes prove difficult and assessing their significance controversial, they should all be considered as ‘an intentional, active, upwardly-directed response to