Employee relations
LIZZZ33
IndustrialConflictandItsExpressions.pdf
Employee Relations Industrial Conflict and Its Expressions
Farhad Analoui, Andrew Kakabadse,
Article information: To cite this document: Farhad Analoui, Andrew Kakabadse, (1993) "Industrial Conflict and Its Expressions", Employee Relations, Vol. 15 Issue: 1, pp.46-62, https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000001032 Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000001032
Downloaded on: 22 March 2019, At: 22:15 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 780 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2015),"Conflict: trends and forms of collective action", Employee Relations, Vol. 37 Iss 6 pp. 720-732 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-06-2015-0102">https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-06-2015-0102</a> (1983),"Industrial Conflict and the Nature of Labour Contracts", Employee Relations, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 23-27 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055009">https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055009</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:414810 []
For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well
as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
Employee Relations 5,1
46
Industrial Conflict and Its Expressions
Farhad Analoui Development and Project Planning Centre, University of Bradford, and
Andrew Kakabadse School of Management, Cranfield Institute of Technology, Cranfield, UK
There is an abundance of literature available in the field of industrial conflict and workplace discontent. Ironically, most writers on organization have not shown much interest in what people actually do in situations of conflict, how conflict is generally processed and how it affects the harmony and order of the organization or the organization as a whole[1]. Those concerned with industrial relations have shown an unequal amount of interest for the traditionally well known, easily recognizable public forms of behaviours like strike and labour turnover[2]. As Kornhauser aptly asserts: "Only 'lip service' is paid to the 'less spectacular manifestations of conflict' "[3, p. 13] such as industrial sabotage and other forms of workplace destructive practices.
There are different perspectives on conflict which inevitably result in a lack of consensus and some confusion among theorists and practitioners alike as to what constitutes "conflict" and what range of behavioural forms it takes. The classifications available reflect the preoccupation, on the part of the writers and the theorists concerned, with the most visible aspect of discontent at work rather than the less obvious and private forms such as avoidance, vengeance, gossip and self-help[4]. This has meant that the actors involved, their intentions, motives and the decisions made[5] for expressing their experienced discontent are relatively unexplored.
Indeed, there is an apparent need for a framework of analysis in order to study discontent and its varied behavioural expressions, one which has an inbuilt potential for including the conventional forms of conflict expressions such as strikes as well as "the older and more hidden types of work behaviours such as doubling up, sabotage and cutting corners"[6, p. 28]. Attention must be paid not only to "who" is involved in conflict situations but also "how" and "why" the discontent felt is expressed[7]. Up to now, very little is known about the full range of tactical choices available to the individuals and groups at work and how they are being employed in conventional and unconventional ways. This article is a response to this perceived need.
First, the major classifications concerning the various expressions of discontent such as "organized", versus "unorganized", "individual" and "collective", "public and private" forms of conflict and controversial issues such as "alternative forms" will be briefly examined. The intention is to demonstrate the degree of complexity
mployee Relations, Vol 15 No. 1, 1993, pp 46-62 © MCB University Press 01425455
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
Industrial Conflict and Its
Expressions
47
and ambiguity which surrounds the subject. Second, an explanatory analytical framework for the analysis of workplace conflict and its behavioural expressions will be proposed. This will enable the reader to understand the ways in which discontent is experienced and is strategically expressed in different behavioural forms. Finally, various implications of this behavioural approach for scholars and practitioners in industry will be addressed and conclusions will be reached.
Expressions of Conflict: An Overview It has long been recognized that industrial conflict can be expressed in a wide variety of ways[8, p. 1]. However, not all the possible ways through which discontent is expressed, are either listed or agreed upon. It is certain though that despite the over- emphasis which is placed on some well-known forms of conflict expression, like strikes, the diversity of forms in which industrial discontent can be expressed are:
as unlimited as the ingenuity of Man. The strike is the most common and most visible expression, but conflict with the employer may also take the form of peaceful bargaining and grievance handling, of boycotts, of political action, of restriction of output, of sabotage, of absenteeism, of personnel turnover[9, p. 171].
These ways of expressing discontent are traditionally referred to as forms of industrial conflict and while there is a lack of consensus concerning the possible range of the forms available, a typical list which illustrates the varied nature of industrial conflict includes:
Absenteeism, labour turnover, accidents, pilferage, sabotage and resistance of efforts as well as strikes and other collective action[10, p. 210].
Classification of Conflict: Confusion and Concern Basically, the writers' and theorists' understanding of conflict has been largely influenced by their unique positions within a specific intellectual paradigm[11]. Social theorists for instance, such as Marx and Weber, saw conflict as the result of the class conflict and the on-going struggle present in society. Management theorists, including those who prescribed to classical and human relations schools of thought, regarded conflict as manageable and to a degree "correctable". The advocators of the conflict theory perceived conflict as being built into the organization[12]. For these writers, the organization constitutes a battleground, of which conflict is the natural outcome, which can be resolved but requires managerial intervention[13]. Political theorists' treatment of the subject is deemed to be more realistic. Conflict is viewed as an indispensable aspect of organizational life which is neither "episodic" nor "problematic"[14].
As far as expressions of conflict are concerned, the situation has remained rather unclear. For instance, both Kerr[9] and Knowles[10] have simply divided various forms of discontent into two major categories: those which are of a collective nature and those which are otherwise. In the midst of the confusion which surrounds the subject, the expression of discontent has often been equated with the discontent itself. Kassen, in discussing industrial conflict notes that:
Strikes are extreme examples of discontent in the workplace and are costly in both human and economic terms[15, p. 259].
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
Employee Relations 15,1
48
Equally often, expressions of conflict are referred to as "types of conflict"[16, p. 164]. What follows represents the major attempts to classify conflict and its expressions.
Organized versus Unorganized Conflict It has been suggested that to understand conflict and its forms the analysis should take a bipolar form. The adoption of opposites such as "cooperation" and "competition" as a conceptual means for exploring conflict situations helps to capture the least visible expressions as well as the public forms such as strike which characteristically emerge in organizations with bureaucratic structures[17].
Kornhauser adopts a bipolar classification and divides various forms of conflict expression into two separate categories, on the basis of whether they are organized or unorganized. The criterion employed is that the former is "essentially a group behaviour [usually between union and management] and the latter covers the individual forms"[3, p. 14].
Since then this distinction has frequently been used by many writers in the fields of industrial relations and organizational conflict alike:
An organised conflict is primarily a group phenomenon whose main form of expression is dispute, and certain negotiation and grievance procedures will normally be established to deal with it. Whereas, unorganised conflict, which is often not regarded as conflict by the person in the situation and for who containment and resolution established procedures do not normally exist[18, p. 40].
Although this distinction between "organized" and "unorganized" is appealing and has been referred to as being "of great analytical importance"[19], it is somewhat problematic. This is because "organized" is equated with "collective" forms of expressions of discontent, while other forms like "destructive practices" are referred to as "individual" and "unorganized". This distinction which at first seems to be adequate becomes inadequate when it is considered that in practice some so-called unorganized forms of conflict expression in the workplace "may take place on an individual as well as an organized basis"[9].
A distinction has been made between private and public forms of conflict. Public refers to visible, overt and authorized confrontations, whereas private has the opposite labels of covert, hidden and unauthorized, activities which may take the form of avoidance or confrontation. This is often brought about as a result of the development of situational norms.
In the private arena, norms and rules for appropriate conflict behaviour arise from the situation rather than from the public standards or bureaucratic rules[2, p. 19].
Other terms and labels have also been used to make further distinctions. For instnce "direct" as opposed to "indirect"[8,20] and "well calculated" as opposed to "spontaneous and personal"[19,21], "authorized" as opposed to "unauthorized"[2,22].
In some cases where terms such as institutionalized or uninstitutionalized are used, they do not specifically refer to the behaviour of individuals. Instead they are employed as a means of distinguishing between those cases where established procedures, machinery and organizations exist for regulating expression[23]. Further, terms such as destructive, constructive, ordain, disorder and so on are usually employed to describe whether or not facilities for conflict resolution exist.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
Industrial Conflict and Its
Expressions
49
The relevance of these classifications to unconventional activities like discipline, pilferage and destructive practices is evident. As expressions of discontent can be "direct" (like destructive practices) and "indirect" (like non co-operation and rule breaking); they can take "individual" as well as "group" forms; and can be elaborately planned (for instance, certain cases of pilferage and disruptive practices) or constitute spontaneous actions (like cases of desrruction)[24,25]. As for "institutionalization" these unconventional behaviours are likely to gain formal recognition because of their taboo and undesirable nature.
However, as Mars explains: "The existence of informally agreed-upon rules and regulations within the social system of the workplace concerning specific behaviours, for example, 'pilferage', 'knock offs' and so on, can lead to their informal recognition and, over a period of time they can become formally and covertly institutionalized"[26, p. 196].
As the term "organized" basically refers to those expressions of discontent which have the benefit of some organizing and regulating body outside the workplace, for example, a union or association of some kind, those workplace behaviours which are of an unorthodox nature and which at times have been used to express resentment - albeit unconventionally - will here be referred to as unorganized. This, however, as will be explained later, is not to suggest that unconventional behaviours as a whole cannot be organized. Mars in his study of "Dock Pilferage" while discussing the "system of pilferage" asserts that:
When we examine the work role of the men in the long-shore gang, we find the technical system imposing a two-fold specialisation which has crucial effects on the way pilferage is organised[27, p. 221].
Thus, when the term "unorganized" is used here, it is meant to refer to certain work- related situations where a particular unconventional behaviour is employed to express discontent, and which is not formally recognized as an appropriate behaviour for this purpose - like sabotage.
Alternative Forms of Conflict Expression Kerr[9] also refers to the debate concerning "forms of conflict expression". Where those forms of conflict expression are labelled as "unorganized" they are also seen to constitute an "alternative" to collective and organized actions. For instance, Jackson states that:
Labour turnover, absenteeism and accident rates have been used as measures of Industrial Conflict because it has been argued that they are alternative ways in which a worker may express dissatisfaction with employment conditions and relations[16, p. 165]
It is therefore implied that alternative forms are less viable ways in which discontent and dissatisfaction can be expressed. Moreover, that given a choice individuals would instinctively prefer collective (public) and organized actions, and that it is only when other options are unavailable that practices such as quitting (withdrawing from the source of discontent) or employing unconventional behaviours like pilferage and industrial sabotage are taken up[25].
Hyman takes this debate further and suggests that unorganized forms of conflict expression are the result of the "only choice" but that they are also of a spontaneous nature and are not premeditated to any great extent:
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
Employee Relations 15,1
50
Putting it simply, in unorganised conflict the worker typically responds to the oppressive situation in the only way open to him as an individual, by withdrawing from the only source of discontent or in the case of forms of individual sabotage or indiscipline such reactions rarely derive from any calculated strategy[19, p. 53]
The implications of this view - which incidentally is common to writers on this subject - for the unconventional behaviours which are employed to express discontent are that:
(1) These behaviours always and necessarily take the "unorganized" and "individual" forms.
(2) They also constitute "alternatives" to "organized" and "collective" forms of conflict expression.
(3) They are only employed by workers. This, however, is a misconception. It was discovered that not all unconventional behaviours constitute discontent expression - whether organized or unorganized forms[24]. Further, and in conflict with Kornhauser[3] and Fox[23] unconventional behaviours which are used to express discontent are not always carried out by the workers, but also by the managers and by both groups in collusion[26]. Many cases have been reported where expressions of discontent not only took place between the two sides - workers and managers - but also occurred between the members of each side - workers against workers and management against management[8,28,29].
Many writers, in fact, have attempted to correlate the incidence rates of various expressions of discontent with each other and have concluded that there is a direct relationship between unorganized and collective forms[30]. However, as Knowles[10, p. 226],0'Muircheartaigh[31, p. 38], McCormick[32, p. 170] and Williams [33] contend, it seems logical to conclude that although a direct relationship between the occurrence of unorganized and organized forms of conflict expressions may exist in one setting it does not necessarily follow that it should exist in every industrial setting.
Figure 1. Categories of Workplace Conflict and Its Behavioural Expressions
Categories of workplace conflict
Implicit (non-observable) i
Expressed (observable)
Categories of behaviour
Individual/Collective (actors)
Overt
Covert (mode of
(expression)
Categories of strategies
Individual overt
Individual covert
Collective overt/and
Collective covert
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
Industrial Conflict and Its
Expressions
51
Nowadays, emphasis is being placed more on "adhocracy"[34,35] than on bureaucratic structures and the increasingly diversified nature of the workforce conflict is seen as being inherent in the structure of the organization[36,37].
The relevance of the above classifications and what they mean for the understanding of discontent and the underlying processes which give rise to its behavioural expressions is a limited one. Instead, the authors believe that the main concern should be to treat conflict and its behavioural expressions - whether of a conventional nature like strikes or unconventional like industrial sabotage - in such a way that equal emphasis is placed on the "behaviour" and the "actor(s)" involved.
Towards an Exploratory Framework for the Analysis of Expressions of Discontent In the social sciences, the explanations offered, regardless of the nature of the behaviour of the phenomenon under investigation, are indicative of the kind of values, beliefs and related assumptions which the scientists concerned held regarding the methodology in use[ll].
Here the author's prime concern is with the ways in which people view, define, interpret their actions and react to other people and situations. The adoption of an interactionist perspective places stress on the significance of the actions and the medium of "meanings". In agreement with Keenoy:
Social action theory can prove to be of considerable benefit towards understanding why people behave in the way that they do and why people hold the views they do[38, p. 33]
Therefore, in order to fully appreciate the grounds on which this explanatory framework is based, it would be deemed essential to first ensure that the theoretical assumptions underpinning the "nature of man" and the "workplace environment" are understood.
Purposeful Action It is believed that expressions of discontent should be viewed as deliberate and desired actions which are consciously employed in order to demonstrate a clash of interests.
People, therefore, are assumed to be what they are: conscious and self-directing individuals who, once they have recognized that there is a conflict of interests between themselves and others, "consciously interpret the situation in which they find themselves and in the light of these interpretations they select their responses in accordance with goals which they wish to achieve"[39, p. 67].
Man, therefore, is seen to both influence and be influenced by both the human and non- human elements in his environment. As Kakabadse asserts: "People are responsive to situations and also influence situations"[40, p. 96].
It is also held that work relationships are special forms of social relationships and that the extent of their significance for those involved is primarily determined by the structure of the situations in which they interact with one another. The meanings attributed by the participants to their actions are, therefore, indicative of the nature and extent of the kind of influence which work relationships have on their conduct.
Equally, these meanings can be seen to be evident of the subtle processes of reciprocal interactions which are present (and their nature) within a specific workplace environment.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
Employee Relations 15,1
52
It follows, therefore, that the plurality and diversity of individual and group interest within the organization[40] creates an environment or arena which is potentially conflicrual[41].
Expressions of discontent whether conventional like strikes or unconventional such as destructive practices, indiscipline and so on, constitute varied patterns of behaviour. These observable patterns of behaviours which are adopted to express the experienced discontent ought to become the focus of analysis.
Workplace as a Forum for Conflict The workplace must also be regarded as what it is, a social situation which is characterized by the diversity of the interests on the part of its participants[23,42-45]. Individuals are thought to join the organization primarily in order to enhance and pursue their own objectives and interests[46-49]. In effect the work relationship provides the context in which people, through their interactions with each other, understand, interpret and exercise a choice for action accordingly[50,51].
The diversity and plurality of interests on the one hand and the individual's pursuit of his own objectives on the other, inevitably give rise to a clash of interests which create discontent and hence lead to the emergence of the need for expressions of the experienced discontent.
Once a clash of interests has been realized, the actors involved may or may not choose to express the discontent in behavioural forms. Thereby, expressing a personal choice. Therefore, it is evident that we should concern ourselves with recognizable clashes of interests which are expressed in visible behavioural forms. (It must be noted that in dealing with discontent and its visible behavioural expressions (whether conventional or unconventional) the term "manifestation" employed by Dahrendorf[52, p. 178] as against "latent" will not be used; simply because this orientation to conflict is insufficient to explain the processes involved and "why" manifestations of conflict can take various forms.)
In short, the concern here is with situations where, as a result of clashes of interests, discontent emerges and the individuals involved decide to express their discontent by means of intentional and meaningful actions.
In fact, the extensive observations made in industry and the evidence available in the literature make the following classification of discontent and its expressions a plausible one.
The advantages of employing this broad classification are that: (1) It does not dispute the existence of conventional forms of discontent expression,
rather it includes the possibility for employing certain unconventional behaviours for this purpose.
(2) It also provides a basis for what was discovered and is referred to as the behavioural strategies or tactics which were available to the people in order to express their recognizable conflict in observable behavioural forms. (The strategies open to the aggrieved will be presented in the form of a model and will be discussed later.)
Implicit Discontent The clashes of interest recognized by those within the work situation may or may not gain behavioural expression. The primary concern here is with those conflict situations which are
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
Industrial Conflict and Its
Expressions
53
realized as such by the people involved and discontent which is expressed in some kind of observable behaviour. However, to avoid ambiguity it is necessary to explain that in the analysis of work relationships discontent will be referred to as "implicit" when there is a recognizable clash of interests and explanations can be made as to why they have not gained an observable expression[8, p. 13]. In these situations discontent will be viewed as being implicit in the structure of the work relationship.
Expressed Discontent Expressed conflict refers to those situations where recognizable clashes of interests have gained observable expression. However, an observable behaviour by itself does not necessarily constitute an expression of discontent. For instance, in a situation where an individual is absent from work, his behaviour may be due to a variety of reasons - sickness, attending a football match and so on. Further, in a situation where an expensive piece of machinery is impaired, the incident may be due to a mechanical failure, mindless acts of vandalism, or be the result of a deliberate expression of discontent.
Therefore, the concern must be only with those cases where a recognizable clash of interests gained - and indeed was meant to constitute - an observable behavioural expression.
This discussion also brings to the forefront the important question of to whom is the behaviour observable? From the observations made in industry it became clear that, depending on their intention, individuals and groups decided whether or not their action and/or their identity was to be known to the target. This is illustrated by two situations:
(1) As a result of a recognizable clash of interests between individuals A and B, A expresses his discontent against B by resorting to some form of destructive practice. The incident occurred in his absence and the target individual naturally is not aware of the: • action taken; and/ or • identity of the aggrieved individual; • way in which the action took place.
(2) In this situation a discontented employee tells his manager that he has had "enough". Then he throws a tray full of glasses into the bin, breaking them, and walks out of his workplace. Here the identity of the aggrieved party - the worker - and his behaviour were made observable to the target - the manager.
The difference between these situations is clear. The behaviour of the aggrieved individual was observable in both cases. However, in one case it was meant to be observable to the target, whereas in the other the target was not aware of the action taken against him. Therefore, a distinction can be made between those expressions of discontent which are of an overt or covert nature.
Overt Expression of Discontent This category of behaviour is probably one of the most well known and popular tactics employed by individuals or groups in industry as a whole[23, p. 400; 53, p. 2] and in the workplace in particular.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
In these situations the intention of the aggrieved is to communicate and express discontent in an overt and undisguised manner. It is intended that the action taken and the identity of the individual or group involved is to be known to the party against whom the action is taken. Strikes, labour turnover, absenteeism, non co-operation and even destructive practices may all qualify for this category.
Covert Expression of Discontent In this category, the intention of the individual or a group is to adopt disguised and covert strategies to express their discontent[54; 55, p. 2]. For instance, in a situation where managerial domination is complete, any overt attempt to express discontent may have serious repercussions for those involved. An aggrieved party, therefore, may have to resort to covert tactics.
This category of expression accommodates the majority of unorganized forms like absenteeism and certain of the unconventional behaviours like destruction and mutilation of the work environment, inaction, non-co-operation, pilferage and so on. In short, the covert strategy is usually adopted when the intention of the aggrieved individual or group is to:
(1) protect the identity of those involved; (2) avoid the danger of the action being discovered; or (3) both.
Based on the above, a model is put forward which can be employed for the analysis of expressions of discontent in general and unconventional forms in particular.
Involvement-Expression: A Behavioural Model for Cases of Expression of Discontent The involvement-expression model is two-dimensional, and will provide an analytical and exploratory tool for understanding those cases of workplace discontent which have gained behavioural expression. The two dimensions which have been identified are as follows.
Involvement (Who) This dimension represents whether an individual or a collective was involved in the recognition of a clash of interests which is based on shared (collective) or unshared (individual) values, thoughts and beliefs. (This distinction between the individual or collective expression of discontent was based on whether or not the participants involved held a common set of ideas or beliefs concerning the cause of discontent. Therefore, whenever the terms "shared" or "unshared" are employed in the text they are indicative of whether certain values and beliefs were held by an individual (unshared) or a group (shared).)
The answer to the question "Who?" therefore fulfils an important analytical function in that it places the actor(s) at the very centre of analysis. In order to understand why an individual or group is involved in an expression of discontent it is necessary to determine how an individual understands, interprets, acts on, interacts with and reacts to others and situations. In this way valuable insights are obtained concerning an individual's unique frame of reference - his values, thoughts and beliefs.
Employee Relations 15,1
54
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
Industrial Conflict and Its
Expressions
55
Expression (How) This dimension represents the behavioural strategies available to the participants to express their discontent - overt or covert.
This distinction between overt and covert strategies is of significant analytical importance because it brings to the forefront the fact that the actor is:
Capable of a conscious selection of behaviours, explicitly planned behaviour and of a choice pursued[50, p. 15].
The combination of these two dimensions produces four broad behavioural categories: individual-overt, individual-covert, collective-overt and collective-covert. These behavioural categories are employed in order to express discontent (see Figure 2).
The use of this behavioural model is not exclusive to the cases where unconventional behaviours were employed for discontent expressions. It is believed that, potentially, this model can be applied to all forms of expressions of discontent. For example, strikes can be described as involving a collectivity which tends to share certain thoughts, values and beliefs concerning a recognizable issue of interest. This shared discontent is expressed in an overt and undisguised manner. The strike, therefore, is characterized by the collective-overt strategy employed for expressing discontent. Obviously, a strike could only ever be collective-overt. In contrast, certain unconventional
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
behaviours like destructive practices, non-co-operation and so on, may take all four possible forms.
People: The Choice Makers The most significant feature of the proposed model for understanding and explaining conflict and its expressions is that it does not solely advocate the view that human behaviour might be regarded as being mechanistically determined, and therefore, "men (should not be) treated as wholly passive, the helpless playthings of social forces"[19]. Neither does it subscribe to the view which is generally held among the advocates of functionalism, that conflict is malfunctional. The excessive preoccupation of most writers in organization with "order", "integration", "co-operation", "stability" and "consensus" has led to the significance of conflict and the individual and group attempts at expressing their discontent in the workplace being seriously undermined[48].
Arguably, neither of the above extreme views about conflict and its expressions treats the individual actors as entirely capable of making a choice concerning their response to situations; rather they treat them as being at the mercy and influence of external and wider social forces.
The reality of the work situation is that, people either as employees or managers, or as individual and groups within the workplace, seek the attainment of the organization's and their own objectives, aims and interests. The authors' long-term observations made in various organizations within service and manufacturing industries indicate that in conflict situations a selection of choices are available to people. It is the people's values, thoughts and beliefs which form the basis for their realization of clashes of interests, the choice of their response and the behavioural strategy to be employed.
The implications of this approach to conflict are manifold. For managers of work organizations, it is essential to bear in mind that the kind of actions which are specifically chosen by the employees to express their discontent are in fact responses to the situations with which they are confronted. Management can influence the process of choice making by altering, modifying and even changing the structure of the work relationships.
The process of expressing discontent at work also includes the evaluation of and choosing from among the options which are available to people at work. Management attitudes and approaches to people, their views concerning the nature of organizational conflict and the style of leadership which they employ, by and large, determine the range of choices available to people, as well as influencing people's choice of response. These responses may range from strikes, absenteeism and even attempting to "quit" as opposed to resorting to destructive practices in covert and disguised manners. So what are the major choices available to people when experiencing discontent at work and what implications do these hold for the management of conflict in work organizations?
To Express or Not to Express? One of the most basic decisions which people have to make when experiencing dissatisfaction and discontent in the workplace is whether or not they should express the discomfort experienced. All too often, just because there is no visible sign of expressions of discontent on the part of the employees at work, managers assume that all is well. Indeed, as Fox[23] aptly asserts, there are situations where the domination
Employee Relations 15,1
56
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
Industrial Conflict and Its
Expressions
57
of control is so great that the conflict tends to remain suppressed and dormant within the structure of the work relationships. Managers who advocate the principles of classical management view people in organizations as "rational, economic animals [whose] feelings are irrational and their activities have to be carefully circumscribed and controlled to ensure that they would not interfere with the effective performance of the organisational task"[56, p. 110]. From this perspective the manager's role is largely seen as being responsible for raising productivity and profitability, partly by intensifying labour and partly by an increase in efficiency[23,53]. It is not, therefore, surprising if people in work organizations are viewed as being inherently lazy and that a manager's role should be seen as being responsible for providing financial rewards and inducements to ensure the profitability and productivity of the unit or the organization[57].
The adoption of a hard-line classical management philosophy towards managing people at work is probably the main cause for the emergence of so much conflict in industry. There are still many practitioners of Taylorism in industry who view organized behaviour and trade unions as "troublemakers", and acts of conflict expression, regardless of their forms, as destructive, disorderly and irrational. Thus, managers are often seen to assume the role of suppressor and, where possible, eliminator of the source expressions of the discontent.
In contrast, where there is a kind of managerial philosophy in operation, which views conflict as an inevitable aspect of daily work relationships and not necessarily as destructive in nature, instead of suppressing the discontent managers have been observed to encourage people at work to express their views freely and without repercussions, even if such views are in conflict with those of the management The presence of legitimized and effective channels of communication can ensure that conflict is voiced, expressed and dealt with rather than being suppressed, and the frustrated, aggrieved individual left in isolation can therefore choose from among the less desirable choices of action which are open to him/her.
Choice of Action Once the aggrieved individual has gone through the cognitive process of choice making and decided to express the discontent which he is experiencing, there is a wide range of behavioural responses available to him. These actions may vary from simply "quitting" the job, "going slow" or "withdrawing" his labour to, under unfavourable conditions, unconventional practices such as pilferage, rule-breaking, destructive practices (industrial sabotage), non-co-operation, disruptive practices and misuse of facilities - all of which can be employed to express the discontent and as an attempt to deal with its cause[24].
Again, the management attitude to conflict and whether or not the channels for orderly expression of discontent are made available and adequate grievance procedures and machinery are provided, by and large, determines the choice of actions on the part of the aggrieved. The presence of ineffective communication channels, a lack of appropriate managerial policies, poor procedures and means for dealing with grievances at work, would all result in the employment of individual and unconventional forms of behaviours. Mars[26] explains how the issue of low pay in organizations within the hotel and catering industry and a lack of appropriate and efficient channels for handling pay-related disputes will inevitably give rise to pilferage and industrial theft. Other writers have also reported incidents whereby the frustration experienced by employees has resulted in the deliberate destruction of the work environment[20,21,57,58]. The choice of
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
Employee Relations 15,1
58
action to be employed is also an indication of the significance of the actor's logic in relation to a particular situation. This critical point must be considered if we are to make use of the conventional practices which are adopted for the purpose of expressing discontent at work.
Unfortunately, the tendency on the part of those managers who entirely subscribe to the unorthodox philosophy of management is to see only their own single logic in operation. As Kakabadse aptly contends: "Unfortunately for management though, people do not always behave in such a predetermined manner and stability and equilibrium are not necessarily the norm"[55, p. 11].
Unconventional behaviours, such as pilferage, have been chosen to be employed as alternative means for expressing and resolving the conflict felt and even referred to, by those who employ them, as their logical response to these situations. Managers in industry should provide the foundation for the creation of the appropriate workplace culture in which only the least disruptive and damaging forms of discontent are promoted, rewarded and are naturally adopted as the logical response to situations of discontent.
Tactical Choice The behavioural model, "involvement-expression" clearly demonstrates the range of behavioural strategies which are available to people when the decision to express conflict is made. Although forms of discontent expression (actions) may vary depending on people's ingenuity, intention and their unique perception of the situation and what in their view should constitute the appropriate response to the conflict experienced, the number of behavioural strategies available to people would remain always basically unchanged (see Figure 3). In all, four tactical choices are proposed. These are: individual-overt, individual-covert, collective-overt and collective- covert. The distinction made between "overt" and "covert" forms of action is believed to be of an analytical importance. The significance of the identified strategies becomes particularly evident when it is considered that the four identified tactics can be equally and effectively used for the expression of all possible forms of discontent expression - conventional or unconventional forms.
Indeed, covert strategies have been known to be used to "protect" the identity of the perpetrators and/or the nature of their actions from discovery[8,24]. The use of covert tactics places the target individual or group at a complete disadvantage[57,58].
The leadership style employed by the managers in industry, as a whole, can considerably influence the choice of the tactics to be adopted by the employees in the organizations. It has been alleged that, when there is a growing fear of retribution and persecution by the management, workers are more likely to resort to covert tactics as opposed to overt ones. It is argued that where the "telling" style of leadership is replaced with a more participative and democratic one people are likely to openly discuss their issues of discontent with management and hence jointly attempt to discover ways of resolving the troublesome situations. Managers are often not aware of the fact that the choices which their employees make are largely constrained and influenced by their own managerial attitudes and their degree of concern for people and work.
Undoubtedly, the occurrences of expressions of discontent at work, whether in conventional or unconventional forms, will have an influence on the degree of effectiveness of the operations/service, on the productivity of the work units and on the efficiency of the organization as a whole. It is, therefore, essential for managers to attempt to understand and accommodate opposing views and resolve the organizational conflict rather than avoiding it or resorting to unnecessary
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
Industrial Conflict and Its
Expressions
59
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
Employee Relations 15,1
6 0
confrontation and the use of uncalled-for measures of control. The following are some suggestions for practitioners to deal with conflict situations more effectively:
(1) It must be recognized that conflict at work may take overt as well as covert forms. Therefore, to avoid the occurrence of camouflaged forms, channels for orderly and authorized conflict processing should be made available and their use encouraged.
(2) Both the hygiene and motivating factors must be improved to ensure a higher quality of working life.
(3) Adequate training should be provided for employees, at individual and group (team) levels, to carry out the task efficiently and confidently.
(4) Opportunities for job career advancement, promotion to supervisory, junior and senior levels of management should be built into the structure of the employment relationships.
(5) The role of the managers, especially at supervisory levels, must be strengthened by providing the appropriate training opportunities in the areas of interpersonal and communication skills, decision making, and problem solving as prerequisites to conflict handling and or resolution.
(6) The concept of quality circles must be introduced to encourage: • free discussion and exchange of the views and ideas among employees and
supervisors; • identification of the problem areas and possible acceptance suggestions for their
solutions; and • improving the quality of product/services and work life as a whole by using think-
tank type activities and rewarding the creative, innovative and workable ideas.
(7) Leadership styles which are conducive to negotiation and formulation of alternative means for processing conflict and generating viable solutions to conflict must be adopted. Managers should not succumb to seemingly easy-to-implement strategy - suppressing discontent at work.
Conclusion Conflict is and will always remain an undeniable aspect of the relationships within the workplace. Effort on the part of managers and practitioners in industry towards a better understanding of the people, work processes and their own managerial attitudes and philosophies will ultimately result in an accurate diagnosis of the reasons for the emergence of conflict and its varied behavioural expressions.
There is an extensive range and combination of choices of action available to people to strategically vent their disagreement with one another. The conflict, whether expressed in the form of trivial non-co-operation incidents or displayed in the form of prolonged withdrawal of labour (strikes), all affect and influence the degree of effectiveness of organizations, industry, and the economy as a whole.
Managers, at all levels, especially at line and supervisory levels should be trained to understand what conflict is, how it is expressed and more importantly how, through adopting
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
Industrial Conflict and Its
Expressions
61
effective two-way communications and the employment of appropriate managerial styles, it can be managed and the occurrence of its expressions realistically reduced.
References 1. Collins, R., Conflict Sociology, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1975. 2. Kolb, M.D. and Bartunek, M.J, Hidden Conflict in Organisation: Uncovering Behind-the-scenes Disputes,
Sage Publications, London, 1992. 3. Kornhauser, A., "Human Motivations Underlying Industrial Conflict", in Edwards, P.K. and Scullion,
A.D. (Eds), The Social Organisation of Industrial Conflict, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1982. 4. Morril, C., "Conflict Management, Honor and Organisation Change", American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 79,1991, pp. 585-622. 5. Raiffa, H., Art and Science for Negotiation, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982. 6. Wood, S., "Recording the New Industrial Relations", Journal of Employee Relations, Vol. 8 No. 5, 1986,
pp. 23-31. 7. Felstiner, W.R.A. and Sarat, A, "The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming
and Claiming", Law and Society Renew, Vol. 15, 1981, pp. 631-54. 8. Edwards, P.K. and Scullion, A.D, The Social Organisation of Industrial Conflict, Basil Blackwell, Oxford,
1982. 9. Kerr, C, Labor and Management in Industrial Society,. Doubleday, New York, NY, 1961.
10. Knowles, K.GJC, Strikes: A Study in Industrial Conflict, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1952. 11. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G., Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, Heinemann Educational,
Portsmouth, NH, 1979. 12. Mintzberg, H., The Structure of Organisations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1979. 13. Galbraith, J, Organisational Design, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1977. 14. Pondy, L.J, "Reflection on Organisation Conflict", Journal of Organisational Change Management, Vol.
2, 1989, pp. 94-8. 15. Kassen, S., The Human Side of Organisation, 13th ed., Harper & Row, New York, 1983. 16. Jackson, M.P., Industrial Relations, Croom Helm, London, 1977. 17. Lax, D. and Sebenius, J., The Manager as Negotiator, Free Press, New York, NY, 1986. 18. Scott, W.H., Mumford, E., McGivering, I.C. and Kirby, J.M., Coal and Conflict: A Study of Industrial
Relations at Collieries, Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, 1963. 19. Hyman, R., Strikes, Fontana-Collins, London, 1972. 20. Brow/i, W., Piecework Bargaining, Heinemann, London, 1969. 21. Taylor, L. and Walton, P., "Industrial Sabotage: Motives and Meanings", in Cohen, S. (Ed.), Images of
Deviance, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1971. 22. Nader, L. and Todd, H.F. (Eds), The DisputingPiocess: Law in Ten Societies, Columbia University Press,
New York, NY, 1978. 23. Fox, A., "Industrial Sociology and Industrial Relations", Research Paper 2, Royal Commission on Trade
Unions and Employers' Associations, HMSO, London, 1969. 24. Analoui, F. and Kakabadse, A, "Defiance at Work", Employee Relations, Vol. 11 No. 3, 1989, pp. 1-62. 25. Analoui, F. and Kakabadse, A, Sabotage: How to Recognise and Manage Defiance at Work, Mercury,
London, 1991. 26. Mars, G., Cheats at Work: An Anthropology of Work Place Crime, Macmillan, London, 1982. 27. Mars, G., "Dock Pilferage", in Rock, P. and Mcintosh, M. (Eds), Deviance and Social Control, Tavistock,
London, 1974. 28. Blau, RM., The Dynamics of Democracy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1955. 29. Gouldner, A. Wildcat Strike, Harper & Row, New York, NY, 1965.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
Employee Relations 15,1
62
30. Handy, C J., Understanding Organisations, 3rd ed., Penguin, London, 1985. 31. O'Muircheartaigh, C.A, Absenteeism in Irish Industry, Irish Productivity Centre, Dublin, 1975. 32. McCormick, B.J, Industrial Relations in the Coal Industry, Macmillan, London, 1979. 33. Williams, A., "Factors Associated with Labour Turnover among Ancillary Staff in Two London Hospitals",
Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 52, March 1979, pp. 1-16. 34. Drucker, P., "The Coming of the New Organisation", Harvard Business Review, January-February 1988,
pp. 45-53. 35. Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H, In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row, New York, NY, 1982. 36. Kanter, R.M., Men and Women of the Corporation, Colophon, New York, 1983. 37. Bacharach, S.B. and Lawler, E.J, Power and Politics in Organisation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
1980. 38. Keenoy, T, Invitation to Industrial Relations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1985. 39. Hyman, R., "Strikes and Industrial Conflict: Concepts, Meanings and Purposes", paper presented to
the Psychology and Industrial Relations Conference, University of Warwick, 28 February 1975. 40. Kakabadse, A., "Towards a Theory of Political Behaviour in Organisations", in Kakabadse, A. and
Parker, C. (Eds), Power, Politics and Organisations: A Behavioural Science View, John Wiley & Son, London, 1984.
41. Salaman, G. and Thompson, K., Control and Ideology in Organisations, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 1980.
42. Goffman, E, Asylum, Doubleday, New York, NY, 1961. 43. Goldthorpe, J.H., Lockwood, D., Bechhofer, F. and Platt, J., The Affluent Worker: Industrial Attitudes
and Behaviour, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1968. 44. Silverman, D., The Theory of Organisations, Heinemann, London, 1990. 45. Turner, B.A., Exploring the Industrial Sub-Culture, Macmillan, London, 1971. 46. Hall, R.L., "A System of Pathology of an Organisation: The Rise and Fall of the 'Old Saturday Evening
Post'", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 2, 1976. 47. Lee, J.A, "Leader Power for Managing Change", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, January
1977, pp. 73-90. 48. Salaman, G, Work Organisation: Resistance and Control, Longman, New York, 1979. 49. Porter, L.A. and Angle, H.L,"The Politics of Upward Influence", in Staw, B. and Cummings, L (Eds),
Research in Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1981. 50. Mangham, L, Interactions and Interventions in Organisation, John Wiley, New York, NY, 1978. 51. Black, D. (Ed), "The Elementary Forms of Conflict Management", New Directions in the Study of Justice,
Law and Social Control, Arizona School of Justice Studies, Arizona State University, Plenum, New York, NY, 1990, pp. 43-69.
52. Dahrendorf, R., Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Societies, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1959. 53. Hill, S., Competition and Control at Work, Heinemann Educational, London, 1981. 54. Dubin, R., "Strike", in Flanders, A. (Ed.), Management and Unions: The Theory and Reform of Industrial
Relations, Faber and Faber, London, 1969. 55. Kakabadse, A., Politics of Management, Gower, Aldershot, 1983. 56. Eldridge, JE.T. and Crombie, A.D., The Sociology of Organisations, George Allen & Unwin, London,
1979. 57. Brown, W., Piece Work Bargaining, Heinemann, London, 1973. 58. Dubois, P., Sabotage in Industry, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1978.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
This article has been cited by:
1. Yehuda Baruch, Stuart Jenkins. 2007. Swearing at work and permissive leadership culture. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 28:6, 492-507. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Farhad Analoui. 1995. Workplace sabotage: its styles, motives and management. Journal of Management Development 14:7, 48-65. [Crossref]
D ow
nl oa
de d
by V
IC TO
RI A
U N
IV ER
SI TY
(A us
tra lia
) A t 2
2: 15
2 2
M ar
ch 2
01 9
(P T)
