603 forum

Managing workplace conflict

Formal and informal approaches

The importance of conflict management

In an ideal world, the workplace would be an environment in which perfect harmony was the norm. Alas, the reality is often quite different. Companies regularly witness accord succumbing to disagreement and dispute. Incidents of this nature often blow over quickly and cause little if any harm. But the threat to performance and organizational well-being over the longer term is a real one that should not be overlooked.

Many firms are not surprisingly now increasing their focus on conflict management. Shifts in policy from successive governments have not harmed their cause. Fears that too great an emphasis on formal procedures can negatively impact on costs and economic growth has led to a loosening of the regulatory shackles. As a result, businesses rightly have greater freedom when it comes to handling employment disputes.

These developments have coincided with a change in practice within organizations. Conflict management traditionally belonged in the human resources (HR) domain. But a growing tendency has emerged whereby HR departments are delegating such responsibilities to line managers. The various aspects of people management are thus added to their operational duties.

Given these growing workplace burdens, line managers will naturally want to make life easier for themselves if at all possible. Resolving conflicts swiftly and efficiently would certainly help in that respect. Things are rarely that straightforward though. How to even approach this task in the first place poses a considerable dilemma. Should line managers exploit the greater flexibility that is now apparently open to them? Or do they simply apply the formal processes and procedures which are in place?

Why informality breeds fear

When permitted, most managers would once have opted for an informal means of tackling any workplace unrest. A quiet word or two here and there often nipped problems in the bud and averted any need for formal disciplinary action. Certain organizations still recognize the merits of this approach. Line managers are encouraged to engage individuals using such as discussion and counseling. Early intervention can stop any minor difference escalating into all out war between employee and firm. A positive impact on performance is more likely when consensus replaces conflict. Such efforts can clearly be worthwhile.

Nevertheless, there is a growing hesitancy among line managers to take the informal route. This is especially apparent among junior managers who:

PAGE 16 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL DIGEST VOL. 24 NO. 1 2016, pp. 16-18, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 0967-0734 DOI 10.1108/HRMID-10-2015-0157

� Lack the competency and confidence needed to use their own discretion in conflict situations.

� Fear that a wrong decision could see them hauled in front of an employment tribunal.

� Worry that mistakes will lead to internal condemnation of their performance.

It is easy to conclude that flexibility in this context might be more of a curse than a blessing.

Another concern is the obvious scope for inconsistency in the way that issues are handled. Different people are always likely to deal with similar situations in different ways. All that does though is to invite accusations of unfairness or prejudice.

Much of the prevailing anxiety among line managers can be attributed to their limited know-how. Such individuals will therefore not possess the foresight or intuition needed to identify issues before they reach a critical stage. Training can equip them with knowledge of formal processes and procedures. That’s easy enough. Intuition is an entirely different matter. It can only come through experience.

This apparent crisis in confidence prompts line managers to seek greater guidance and support from HR personnel. This is often not forthcoming though. The same goes where senior management is concerned. Hitting performance targets is deemed a much higher priority than people management.

The pros and cons of being inflexible

As a result, doing things totally by the book has increasingly become the chosen option. A key aspect of formal procedures is consistency of application. Scope for different interpretations is low. Greater impartiality is therefore perceived. Adhering to the rules is regarded as safer and less risky for all parties involved.

Official acknowledgment of workplace matters does have its drawbacks. Line managers believe that formal responses to conflict can:

� Negatively impact on employee morale.

� Damage positive working relationships and harm productivity.

� Risk key individuals being lost to the firm.

Many likewise argue that going through formal channels is typically:

� A cumbersome process which runs counter to the aim of resolving workplace issues swiftly.

� Demanding on their time to the extent that operational duties can be affected.

� Too rigid a process that leaves little room for maneuver.

The last point is particularly significant. Most cases will normally have individual characteristics that make it almost impossible for one cap to fit all. Even within the confinements of a formal approach, some leeway for common sense to prevail is surely a must.

The often conflicting signals emitted by HR hardly help to inspire line managers. On the one hand, they appear to encourage some use of flexibility and discretion. Notwithstanding this, demand for compliance with formal procedures is also readily apparent. The real danger here is that confused managers will become disillusioned and merely go through the motions when it comes to meeting these obligations.

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between. Adding a formal element to informal processes might just prove the best way forward. Discussions are a prime example where line managers have valuable opportunities to meet with employees and identify any problems or concerns that might be emerging. Making a record of such communications

VOL. 24 NO. 1 2016 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL DIGEST PAGE 17

adds the safety and consistency that are viewed as positive aspects of a formal approach. Casual discussion can then function in a similar way to appraisals.

If organizations insist on line managers being responsible for people management, changes are urgently needed. Conflict management must become part of the job profile for line managers and relevant competencies ascertained. These should be incorporated into the recruitment process and subsequent training, development and performance evaluation of those hired.

Comment

The review is based on “The challenge of managing informally” by Richard Saundry, Carol Jones and Gemma Wibberley. The authors discuss workplace conflict and examine the respective merits of adopting formal and informal approaches as means to resolve problems. This highly detailed piece notes the growing responsibility of often inexperienced line managers to handle such issues and the challenges facing them. Saundry et al. illustrate the many significant points made within a case study involving 12 organizations and conclude by emphasizing the critical need for firms to identify and incorporate key competencies into the recruitment and training of line managers.

Reference

Saundry, R., Jones, C. and Wibberley, G. (2015), “The challenge of managing informally”, Employee Relations, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 428-441, ISSN 0142-5455. doi: 10.1108/ER-06-2014-0061.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

Keywords: Informality, Workplace conflict, Line managers, Procedures

PAGE 18 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL DIGEST VOL. 24 NO. 1 2016

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.