One key strategy to manage workplace conflicts is having a system or program in place to handle conflicts as they arise. This section will teach you how to create that system so that you can deflect potential problems before they become destructive.
Whenever people work together, misunderstandings or disagreements will inevitably occur. In many situations, the parties involved can work out their dispute without involving others or adversely affecting workplace harmony. However, timing is critical. Allowing a conflict to run its own course can backfire when it drags out, and irreparable damage is done to a relationship or to morale. The key in many situations is to have a process in place so that remedies are readily accessible before tempers flare out of control and the situation gets out of hand.
In Chapter 4, Conflict Management Styles, Strategies, and Methods, you learned how seven conflict-management methods (insight, negotiation, facilitation, mediation, arbitration, litigation, and unilateral power) can each be used to manage conflict. In this section, we are going to take this knowledge a step further as I introduce you to the concept of Conflict Management System Design.
When personality clashes disrupt teamwork, productivity, and effectiveness, an intervention is often necessary. If a conflict-savvy supervisor is available to intervene, they may be able to bring about resolution. However, sometimes a supervisor's intervention is not enough, or the supervisor may be viewed as the actual problem. In these instances, having customized formal and informal processes in place to address workplace disputes can be critical. Conflict Management System Design refers to the proactive development, in consultation with employees, of a customized plan or program, which is the Conflict Management System or CMS. It includes formal and informal structures and procedures to address workplace conflict.
Frequently, any conflict-management method outside of court litigation or another formal administrative proceeding is referred to as Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR. ADR processes focus on interest, rather than rights or power to settle disputes. (Remember, in the Lemon story from Chapter 4, Conflict Management Styles, Strategies, and Methods, the sisters' interests were the rind, the juice, and the seeds. Once we understood each sister's interests, it didn't matter who had a legal right to the lemon.)
Interest-based ADR processes are generally considered faster and more user-friendly methods of conflict management than traditional, formal approaches. These processes (such as facilitation and mediation) empower disputing parties to jointly craft resolutions that meet their needs rather than focus on their legal or organizational rights.
Sometimes, the use of ADR processes within an organization is referred to as Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR). IDR is on the rise for a number of reasons including a growing concern for employee rights, the decline in unionization that has resulted in the unavailability of grievance procedures, and the emphasis on controlling costs.
IDR and other ADR processes can provide innovative alternatives to arbitrary office purges. However, before an organization devises a Conflict Management System that uses the ADR or IDR process, there are various factors to consider. Here is what you need to know.
The goal of a well-designed CMS is to bring employee grievances to light by whatever mechanism works best and to defuse as many grievances as possible at an early stage, long before anyone is tempted to call in lawyers. Most ADR processes focus on privacy and strive to avoid the potential embarrassment and unfavorable consequences of a public trial.
Having a CMS in place means that it is legitimate to question authority. An organization's culture has to be prepared to accept this. Along these lines, conflict-management training for managers is essential. This training should not center on legal questions but on how to listen to people, understand their motivations, and assess how the manager's own actions may be perceived.
It is vital that input be gathered from all stakeholders before a CMS is created. This input into the design and development of the system will help ensure a sense of ownership and the perception that the program meets their needs. The necessary stakeholders include the potential complainants, respondents, and bystanders (the rest of the workforce) in the organization. This input will also help develop the new system's credibility and ensure that upper management—or outside consultants—don't design a CMS and hand it down to managers and employees for their use.
Conflict Management Systems can be structured in a variety of ways. What is most important is that all employees understand and respect the CMS. There is no need for expensive or sophisticated options. Instead, the focus should be on making the program approachable and responsive. A CMS should be designed so that the possible outcomes include anything the parties can imagine and agree upon. This is broader than the legal solutions that a judge or jury could impose.
At their simplest, CMSs start with an open-door policy that encourages employees to bring grievances of any kind to their managers, with the assurance that no retaliation will follow. Details such as how the complaints are expressed (verbally or in writing) and how they are channeled depend on several factors, including the company's size and culture. (The open-door policy should be coupled with training for managers so that they know how to react to people when a problem exists.)
Larger organizations can create CMSs with more options. However, sometimes, interest-based processes are difficult to implement in large organizations. Corporations, by definition, are rights and power-based structures. People in rights and power-based structures typically default to rights or power-based conflict-management processes.
The CMS design process should make sense for the particular organization. Since each organization already has its own unique, prescribed policies and practices, it may be necessary to experiment and test processes before arriving at those that best meet with the organization's structure and objectives. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. It is important, however, to keep all policies and procedures as simple as possible, with a minimum of structure and bureaucracy. This can be achieved by starting with the simplest options first and moving progressively up toward the more complex ones.
Any complete system will incorporate the following:
- An investigation process
- An opportunity to explore options through dialogue between the parties
- Access to formal rights-based processes
- Ongoing training to teach and reinforce the program's objectives
- Feedback mechanisms to allow for revisions to the process as needs change
Ultimately, any process that meets the parties' needs may be used in your CMS. For example, staff members at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) use a process that they call "dual-advocacy mediation." This method requires that each of the parties in conflict have a mediator who also acts as a personal advocate. Here are some suggestions of components that can be included in your organization's CMS:
This is a confidential service staffed by company "advisors." The advisor should be a volunteers trained in conflict management, effective listening, ethics, and confidentiality. These advisors can answer questions, act as go-betweens, review options, get the facts, help open doors, or refer to other resources.
Employees are encouraged to meet with their immediate supervisor or any other manager to discuss problems. Employees may or may not be required to seek resolution at the lowest level before approaching the next level of management, including the organization's most senior executives. For the open-door policy to work, there must be a clear and enforced prohibition of retaliation against the system's users.
This variation on the open-door policy gives employees an opportunity to discuss unresolved problems or complaints with a board or committee of management personnel, the president, or CEO.
An individual is designated to investigate and provide advice and assistance to employees with concerns or complaints, act as a liaison between management and employees or coworkers, and help resolve various disputes, including customer disputes. Usually, the ombudsperson is from an independent office.
A grievance procedure is a formal multistep process that outlines the procedures to bring a complaint to progressively higher levels of authority.
Conciliation is an informal process by which a passive third party is positioned between disputing parties in order to create a channel for communication. This is generally done by conveying messages between parties who are unwilling to meet face-to-face. Often, the hope is to identify common interests and to eventually re-establish direct communication.
Mediation is an informal and confidential process whereby an impartial third party with no decision-making power facilitates discussions between disputing parties to help them bring a resolution to the issues at hand. The mediator establishes ground rules for negotiation, opens up the channels of communication, identifies the issues, helps the parties explore options for settlement, and occasionally makes recommendations on the issues in dispute. In mediation, it is the parties that make the final decision as to a resolution of their issues.
Arbitration is a formal process in which a third party listens to the parties' presentation of evidence and arguments and then makes a decision as to what the outcome should be. The decision may or may not be binding.
When other interventions seem unable to effectively handle workplace conflict, the solution may require a change in management or management style. A management team may need to step in, evaluate, and take appropriate steps to rectify the management's behavior or style. Department reorganizing, a change in company policy, monetary compensation, or an apology from the management may be what is called for.
An appeal component should be incorporated into your CMS plans to address one or both parties' dissatisfaction with the conflict's outcome or resolution. While there is no one right answer, whatever the appeals process is, it must be set in place and available to all system users.
Make a note
All CMSs should include written policies that are examined by an attorney.