Destructive and Constructive Conflict in the Workplace - Essay Example

Conflict resolution The Board of Directors Plymouth Car Factory Memorandum on Dispute Resolution Background: This Memorandum offers suggestions on the resolution of a current ongoing dispute at the facility mentioned above. The dispute is summarized as follows: In this facility, the number of workers on the shop floor is being downsized in the atmosphere of recession. This is manifesting itself in the form of a proposed reduction in wages that has been put forward by the management , wherein the workers will not only experience a reduction in wages but will also lose some of the additional perks that they currently enjoy. The workers are unhappy about the reduction in pay and feel that they are being undervalued and this has seriously affected the motivation levels of the workers. They are resisting the reduction in wages all the way and have resorted to a strike from work for the past three days. The strike is impacting negatively upon the profits of Plymouth Car Factory because it has brought virtually all the work to a standstill and the management is anxious to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible. But at the same time, they are not eager to accede to the demands of the workers for the retention of wages at their earlier high levels, because during the course of the recession, the Company has found it extremely difficult to maintain these wages and benefits at these levels and has been forced to consider either downsizing or restructuring through reductions in wages and benefits. The management has threatened to employ other workers if the current workers do not end their strike, accept the reduced wages and benefits and return to work. The workers on the other hand, have responded by threatening to burst into the factory premises and destroy materials and cars, irrespective of whether or not they are thrown into prison. Alternatively, they propose to continue to demonstrate outside the factory premises and to generate unpleasant media publicity about the dispute. These threats by the workers are pushing this dispute into a destructive one that could potentially erupt into a very disruptive situation. While conflict may sometimes be constructive as further detailed below, this dispute is threatening to move into a disruptive conflict that could cause great losses to the Company, the magnitude of which is far in excess of what already exists. Literature review: A distinction exists between constructive and destructive conflict. According to Bogue (2007), the decision on where to stand on an issue often involves making a choice between loyalty to the company an individual works for vis a vis loyalty to the principle that the individual is upholding and fighting for. Conflict arises when such principles are at stake and these conflicts can be complicated by conflict carriers, who essentially bring their cynicism into the organization, thereby causing differences to rise among members of the organization. According to Bogue (2007) conflict can be destructive when conflict zero-sum models are applied, wherein those experiencing the conflict always expect to win without any compromise of any kind; they are only intent on beating down the other party completely. As opposed to this, constructive conflict can be useful in highlighting areas of differences between employees and the management, or in highlighting problems that exist within the organization and which need to be resolved. Constructive conflict is a requirement for optimizing the decision making process. Vadja (2008) explains constructive conflict as the process whereby all parties put their cards on the table and dissent or disagree, expressing their views openly irrespective of one’s role, position or place in the hierarchy. Constructive conflict focuses on ideas, not personalities and involves adopting a non judgmental attitude and supporting the process of relationship building and meaningful dialogue. It offers an opportunity to arrive at win-win solutions through compromise wherein neither party wins completely or loses completely , but the interests of the competing parties are instead resolved amicably. Constructive conflict offers an opportunity to arrive at win-win solutions through compromise wherein neither party wins completely or loses completely, but the interests of the competing parties are instead resolved amicably. In addressing this dispute, several theoretical perspectives are presented below, which will then be applied in order to arrive at the potentially best possible resolution for this particular dispute. At the outset, there are statutory dispute resolution procedures already in existence in the U.K., in resolving disputes pertaining to dismissal of employees. These statutory provisions mandate that at the outset, the dispute would first need to be resolved according to the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Regulation) Regulations 2004 (Anonymous, 2005). Applying these provisions, the process of consultation with the individual employee that has the dispute would be as follows:(a) invitation to a meeting (b) the first meeting (c) the second meeting and (d) the appeal. (Anonymous, 2005). During this process, the employee is informed about the reasons and circumstances for the dispute and motion for dismissal of an employee and the employee should be allowed adequate representation and the opportunity to present his or her defence. One of the theories of conflict resolution has been offered by Hirschman (1970), according to whom workers when confronting workplace problems, have two “contrasting but not mutually exclusive” behavior options: (a) to leave the organization or ‘exit’ and (b) to express their unhappiness or ‘voice’. (Hirschman, 1970:15). Hirschman also offers the view that although both options are likely to send a message to the organization in question about the need for it to improve, the more difficult option of the two is ‘voice’, because it is harder to stay and fight to resolve the dispute as opposed to leaving the organization. Furthermore, Hirschman states that the factor likely to influence the employee’s choice about whether to give ‘voice’ or ‘exit’ is likely to be conditioned by the loyalty of the employee. The more loyal the employee, the more likely he or she is to stay on and fight for a resolution of the dispute in order to improve the organization from within. This would also be the case if the entry into the Company was not an easy one in the first place, those who have achieved this entry with great difficulty are more likely to stay on and fight to preserve their position rather than choose to leave. (Hirschman, 1970:82). In addition to the two options offered above, employees also have the option to remain dissatisfied and choose to ‘acquiesce’, wherein they merely remain dumbly faithful to the Company and do not voice their dissatisfaction at all, either by leaving or by giving voice to their dissatisfaction (Hirschman, 1970:31). In reference to the two options, i.e, to quit or to give voice to their discontent, both can also be linked. For instance, when workers are convinced to an adequate degree that giving voice to their dissatisfaction could produce some results, then they may postpone their decision to quit (Dowdie et al, 2000). According to Lipsky et al (2003), some of the barriers that exist to conflict management systems in the workplace include aspects such as employee cynicism and lack of trust, scepticism of leaders and the legal environment that may not be conducive to the cordial resolution of a dispute. Despite these barriers however, the authors are optimistic about the future of dispute resolution systems and they have speculated that there will be a greater institutionalization of workplace systems, when human resource initiatives begin to play a greater role and when workplace systems are integrated with the corporate values of learning organizations (Lipsky et al, 2003). One of the important limitations in the views offered by these authors however is that they have not touched adequately upon one of the most important factors contributing to the implementation of dispute resolution systems, i.e, internal resistance to change from the workers themselves. Managing this worker resistance may prove to be the greatest barrier to the adoption of a conflict management system. It is important to recognize this internal resistance and to take steps to cope with it, before any kind of solution can be developed in terms of developing an institutional dispute resolution system. Solutions for the resolution of this dispute: Applying these views to the conflict in question, it may be noted that the employees in this instance are resorting to the ‘voice’ option in expressing their dissent. The employee strike is an expression of their threat to exercise the ‘quit’ option, yet their opposition to other workers taking their place is an indication that the objective they seek is to change the organizational policy on reduced wages rather than to actually quit. Moreover, it must also be noted that statutory requirements would require that the striking employees are provided the protection of the grievance redressal procedure before they can be arbitrarily dismissed and replaced by other workers. Yet another factor to be considered in the context of this conflict is that any effective dispute management solution that is developed cannot fail to take into account the internal resistance that is being offered by the workers. If the management continues to fail to take into account this internal resistance and tries to develop a resolution to the dispute, it will inevitably fail, because it must take into account the legitimate grievance of the workers. It could be argued that this conflict is destructive in that the workers are threatening to cause damage to the factory; however it can be a constructive conflict if both parties come together and try to arrive at a win-win solution through compromise rather than seeking to achieve a resolution to the dispute where they are unwilling to compromise. The processes specified under the Dispute Resolution Regulations are also a good course of action to be followed in the case of any dispute that arises within an organization. When meetings are organized between the parties to a dispute, with each party being provided adequate opportunities to air their grievances in a non combative atmosphere, it then becomes possible for the parties to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution to the dispute. Each party may need to compromise their point of view to some extent, but this also offers each party the opportunity to air their views and explain their side of the dispute without acrimony. The opportunity to express differing views in this manner may be referred to as constructive conflict, because it provides the disputing opportunities the forum to air their grievances without the usual adverse consequences that arise out of conflict. Allowing for a formal forum for the redressal of disputes is likely to be useful to organizations in resolving disputes successfully. The statutory dispute resolution procedures that mandate meetings between the parties and also provide the opportunity for appeal by an employee who is being dismissed have been designed in such a manner in order to ensure that the interests of the employees are also represented (www.berr.gov.uk). Therefore any resolution to the dispute must also take into consideration the interests of the employees and the grievances that they are raising. If this conflict is to be prevented from deteriorating into a destructive conflict, then the management needs to recognize that the ‘voice’ of the employees that is being expressed through the strike is in fact, an expression of the loyalty the employees have to the organization that is encouraging them to protest in order to try and change the organizational policy that they do not agree with. Similarly, it is also necessary for the employees to understand that the organizational change in policies that are being instituted through reduction in wages and benefits are an important step, because they offer an alternative to the ‘quit’ option, whereby these employees would be forced to leave the organization because they would be fired. Since the organization is struggling through a recession, it is inevitable that they would seek ways and means to reduce expenses and costs in order for the organization to survive. In the long run, if the organization continues to function by providing the current level of high wages and benefits to the employees, such a survival of the organization would not be possible. Although the employees feel de-motivated by the reduction of wages, this is still a better option than being forced out of the job when the organization is bankrupted in the recession. This does not necessarily mean however, that the organization’s policy must be unequivocally supported by the workers. Their protest is an expression of their loyalty to their principles and the conflict arises only because they are also loyal to the organization and seek to change it from within. A win-win solution to this dispute cannot be obtained if either party seeks to achieve a solution that reflects only their perspective. Rather an effective solution to this dispute will involve a compromise from both parties, such as for example reducing some of the extra and benefits the workers receive but not reducing the actual salaries. Such a restructuring effort may serve to satisfy the needs of both the organization as well as the workers. The organization is able to achieve part of its objectives, i.e, it is able to achieve a reduction in amounts payable to workers in the form of benefits. At the same time, the workers are able to achieve some of what they want, i.e, a continuation of their salaries at the present levels. Neither party is likely to feel that they have completely lost, while at the same time neither party will win totally. Such a solution is likely to be more satisfactory to the employees than losing their dispute altogether. It is however important to note that such a solution to a dispute that represents a compromised solution, where each party is able to win some concessions and thereby achieves a win to some level, will not be possible if this dispute degenerates into a destructive conflict. Such a resolution to the dispute will be possible only if the parties are able to meet in a common forum and be provided an opportunity to express their grievances and explanations of their points of view in an atmosphere without rancour, bitterness and cynicism. The statutory guidelines can provide valuable insight into the manner in which this dispute is to be addressed. Setting up such a common forum where this dispute can be discussed reasonably would be the first step for the parties to begin to address their dispute. Secondly, the parties must be provided time and a non judgmental atmosphere where they may express their views freely. Thirdly, the entire approach to the resolution of the conflict must be constructive, i.e, both parties must be committed to arriving at a solution and be prepared not to adopt a hard line position, but rather to be prepared to compromise as and where necessary in the interest of arriving at a solution. This would involve giving up some goals and objectives in the interest of achieving other more important ones and arriving at a win-win solution for both parties. When a win-win solution can be reached, then this conflict would be a constructive conflict, as opposed to the current threat of erupting into a destructive conflict where arriving at a resolution will become difficult. Bibliography Anonymous, 2005. “The Statutory Dispute resolution procedures: nine months on”, Human resource Management International Digest, 13(7): 38-44 Bogue, Grady E, 2007. “Bogue: Constructive Conflict can be a good thing”, http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/Oct/15/constructive-conflict-can-be-a-good-thing/; Dowding, Keith, Peter John, Thanos Mergoupis and Mark Van Vugt. 2000. "Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Analytic and Empirical Developments", European Journal of Political Research, 37:469-95 Hirschman, Albert O, 1970. “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Declines in Firms, Organizations, and States”, Harvard University Press Hudson, Randy. 2001. “Dignity At Work” Cambridge University Press. Lipsky, David B, Seeber, Ronald L and Fincher, Richard D, 2003. “Emerging systems for managing workplace conflict: Lessons from American corporations for managers and dispute resolution professionals”, Jossey Bass. “Statutory dispute resolution procedures”, http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file23103.pdf; Vadja, Peter, 2008. “Constructive Conflict benefits”, www.helium.com/items/808863-constructive-conflict-benefits; Read More