Table of Contents
Conflict is endemic in organisational life because of the complications of diversity, culture, ideology, individual and group differences and the diversity of interests and goals of members of the organisation.
One of the main duties of managers is to find the means of navigating the narrow bridge of organisational politics of differences and the need for competition and cooperation in the bid to share resources and keep the goodwill for the organisation to survive and continue to retain the capacity to generate more resources for future sharing. There are both internal and external mechanisms as well as strategies for dispute resolution known to industries and organisations which are covered in this article of the manual.
In the real sense, conflict exists in all areas of human behaviour and interactions. The world of work is a world of needs and interests. Because of the conflictual nature of needs and interests, the conflict has been viewed by Dunlop (1965) as inevitable. Individuals in workplaces are motivated to be there for various reasons; especially to meet various needs. Jayeoba, Ayantunji, & Sholesi, (2013) observed that organisations are need fulfilling agents and by their very existence, resources are generated (through various inputs as factors of production), also acquired, accessed and distributed; the processes of which often raise the questions of equity, fairness and justice.
People associated with industries and organisations are there to meet needs; whether as owners, managers, employees and so forth. The needs and aspirations exist at individual and group levels. While owners of businesses invest for profit and other motives, employees get hired to produce goods and offer services as a result of which they earn incomes. In the attempts of employers to optimize returns on investment and employees’ bid to earn fair and equitable income, conflict is born.
Conflict is derived in work places from the fact that goals differ among the entities that constitute stakeholders in organisations. The workplace according to Jayeoba et al (2013) is made up of at least nine entities such as workers, workers’ union, management, owners, association of business owners, customers, government, retirees and the society at large. Each of these entities in one way or the other meet their needs out of the organisational outcomes like products, services, salaries, profits, dividends, taxes and social responsibility. In many instances they also partake in the gains, inconveniences and loss of conflicts. The organisation in this respect is viewed as a need fulfilling agent baking industrial pies that many seek to partake in one form or the other.
Negotiation and bargaining are terms often used synonymously and it is give-and-take, life long process between conflicting interdependent parties and agreement means concurrence of opinion between the parties. Collective bargaining is actually negotiation between parties leading to agreement. In real life situation, especially borrowing from experience, the agreement is turning out to be a complex issue that requires elaboration in terms of documentation of what is agreed, terms conditions and time boundary for implementation and consequences of default. Agreement often involves elaborate ceremony in which parties announce truce, sign documents and make oral commitment to implementation. Almost as if the parties are saying, nowwe are committed to peace.
Negotiation types according to Eze (2004) include the following:
i. Win-Lose: One dominant party gets his way while the other party doesn’t.
ii. Lose-Lose: Neither of the negotiating parties achieve set goals and objectives
iii. No deal: Both parties disagree on all issues
iv. Compromise: Some of the objectives are met by deliberate attempts by both parties to stem down on some of the demands.
v. Win-win: Popular with distributive bargaining during which both parties means of mutually satisfying each others’ demands through effective negotiation and tradeoffs that ensure that the parties leave far better than they came.
Negotiators are not born but made and require basic skills and attributes to succeed. He may be an insider or outsider (hired expert) who has requisite experience on the subject matters that constitutes the dispute issues. Some of the important attributes are:
-Positive attitude
-Ability to negotiate in good faith
-Good memory for facts, names and events
-Clear understanding of dispute issues
-Ability to solve problems creatively
-Ability to communicate clearly and convincingly
-Persuasive and well-mannered
-Have general and emotional intelligence
-Perceptive and intuitive etc
There are two basic types of collective bargaining, which are; integrative and distributive bargaining.
This is a problem solving approach in which interested parties confront the issues and cooperate to identify the problem, generate and weigh alternatives solutions. The approach is suitable when complex issues are involved and there is a dire need to bridge misunderstanding between parties. Example of issue for integrative bargaining may involve the need to wade through depression or falling market share or low productivity. Agreement may be desired on increased productivity, redundancies, lay – offs, cut-back on overtime, pay adjustment and so forth. Such negotiation is to seek means of surviving threatening economic situation. The approach is capable of producing long lasting solution especially when conflict is not rooted in opposing value systems.
The issues involve are divergent mostly involving wage rates, holidays, overtime, bonus and other fringe benefits. It is mostly about sharing the industrial ‘pie’. Opposing values often result in a win-lose situation breeding room for conflict at a later time. This is because one party’s gain is the other’s loss.
Other bargaining types are used in certain situation requiring a shift of strategy and these are:
Divergent issue is involved but the approach is based on use or exercise of power. Bargaining is forced as one party seeks to dominate the other. The approach, demonstrates high concern for self and low concern for others. Parties try as much as possible to get maximum benefit from the bargaining relationship and at the expense of the other. There is minimum cooperation and the process may stir up hostilities, frustration and loss of face on the part of the party that lost out in the power game. This approach cannot be expected to lead to permanent resolution of dispute but may invariably precipitate anther crises in the future.
Workers/union and management are concerned with keeping the organisation going. In an economy characterised with recession, focus is on staying afloat for management while worker is concerned with keeping their jobs. Concessions or compromise may be made in terms of promotion, training allowances and retrenchment with a proviso for recall as soon as things improve.
Some situations produce more conflict than others. It is important to know and anticipate conflict generating situations and circumstances as a means of managing or resolving them. They may derive from internal processes or from external socio-economic and political realities.
i. Internal sources. Among situations producing conflict according to Filley (1975) are; incompatible personality or value systems, unclear or overlapping job boundaries, competition for limited resources and intergroup competition, ineffective communication mode, interdependence of tasks, organisational complexity, unclear policies, rules and standards, unreasonable deadlines/targets, unmet expectations(pay, promotion) and unresolved or suppressed conflicts.
ii. External sources. Other peculiar sources of conflict in Nigerian industries and organisations especially deriving from external sources are: government’s industrial and economic policies, nature of national economic mismanagement, nature of labour legislation, unpatriotic behaviour of the political and business classes and general distribution of wealth and power in society.
As can be seen, these sources of conflict are clearly from internal processes and external sources. Most of sources highlighted above might not directly instigate industrial conflict but do influence general expectations, substantially determining the nature of work.
Other sources/antecedents of conflict as highlighted when closely examined falls into four basic classifications with diverse implications for industrial peace. These classifications are; personality, value, intergroup and cross-cultural conflicts.
This mean interpersonal opposition that is driven by personal dislike or disagreement between parties. An individual’s personality is the package of stable traits and attributes that creates unique identity for the person. Personality is fairly stable over time as to be predictive of individual’s cognitive style, emotional and behavioural disposition. Personality can give an indication of being prone to conflict or cooperation.
Workplace incivility often breeds the seed of personality conflict. This kind of conflict does begin with seemingly insignificant irritation. Examples of such can vary from answering ‘yeah’ on phone and forgetting to say thank you or please, standing uninvited and impatiently over a desk of someone engaged in another activity, dropping trash on the floor, rushing in without greeting or knocking and such other culturally unprescribed behaviours. The irritations get mild or worse depending on personality makeup, previous experiences and status of those involved.
A value according to Rokeach (1973) is an enduring belief that specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct. An individual’s value system according to Rokeach (1973) is an enduring organisation of beliefs concerning preferable modes of conduct or end-states of existence along a continuum of relative importance. Lifelong behaviour patterns are therefore dictated by values shared by individuals and these are fairly well set by early teens and can only be altered by significant life-altering events such as having a child, business or academic failures, death of loved ones, unemployment or job loss. Value conflict erupts when opposition is based on interpersonal differences. According to Rokeach, there are three types of value conflicts. These are; intra/ interpersonal conflict and individual-organisational value conflict.
a. Intrapersonal value conflict. Highly ranked instrumental and terminal values pulling individual in opposing directions can result into inner conflict and stress. Intrapersonal value conflict involves internal priorities that bring about role conflict. A person who value happiness may find it difficult to be aggressive. If the work setting is such that engendered competition and a measure of competitiveness, interpersonal conflict will result.
b. Interpersonal value conflict. This type of conflict runs parallel to intrapersonal value conflict. It results in combinations of instrumental and terminal values that may inevitably spark disagreement in interpersonal relationship with others. A worker may ignore juicy posting that involve bribe taking to the chagrin of more materialistic coworkers.
c. Individual-organisation value conflict.For organisation seeking to embed certain values into their corporate culture, conflict may arise if such values as espoused and enacted collide with employees’ values. Organisation’s core value and guiding principles such as diversity, respect for elders and timeliness though good in themselves may be hard to sell in heterogeneous organisations where such values are assumed at diverse levels of assimilation.
This is addressed to conflict among work groups, teams, departments, unions that may degenerate to infighting, politicking and industrial action. This can be a threat to competitiveness, productivity and industrial peace.
The global economy embraces cross-border mergers, joint ventures, mergers, acquisitions, foreign direct investments and other forms of alliances. Doing business with people of diverse cultures is not a matter of right and wrong but accommodation, acculturation and adaptation. African cultures are communal, while Western and Eastern/Asian cultures are individualistic and collectivistic respectively. Among these cultures, there are widespread differences in perceptions of time, interpersonal space, language, religion, achievement and so forth.
Resolving conflicts revolves around the use of internal and external mechanisms. Internal mechanisms are those put in place by the organisation based on its experiences of past disputes and attempts at dispute resolution.
Internal mechanism according to Obisi (1996) occurs when management routinely device ways and means of regulating overt conflict. Such attempts and mechanisms that result are often referred to as internal conflict regulatory machinery. In essence, the external method of resolving conflict begins after the internal procedure has become dead locked. The internal procedures are as follow:
| Internal disputes settlement procedures |
Source: Animashaun and Shabi (2000), adapted.
The table shows the progression of action often taken internally the moment grievance is noted. The worker reports to his/her supervisor or the head of section whichever is more accessible. If these could not resolve the conflict, it is reported to the human resource manager and or union leader who will try to resolve the dispute. If no satisfactory resolution is obtained, the case may be taken to the head of department who may attempt resolution or eventually refer the matter to the grievance committee.
| External procedure for resolving conflict |
The external methods of resolving conflicts comprise of the following:
3.Industrial Arbitration Panel
4. Industrial Court
Mediation. According to subsection 3 of the trade disputes decree 1976, the parties should look for the assistance of a mediator which the conflicting parties agree on. This should be done within seven days.
Conciliation. If the mediation fails, the minister of labour should within seven days send a conciliator to look into the matter and the conciliator should within 14 days make his report to the minister. The conciliator is out there to settle the disputes but if the parties willingly agree, he may settle the conflict.
Industrial Arbitration Panel. If the conciliation fails, the minister of labour according to section 7 of the trade dispute decree refers the case to the IAP. Not everybody is involved in IAP. It comprises of trade union members employers of labour and respected administrators. It is like a court even cases involving essential services could be referred to directly without going through mediation, conciliation etc. The IAP can hear a case up to 42 days. However, the minister of Labour may extend the period on solid grounds. IAP’s decision or awards would be sent to the minister of labour, who would send the outcome to the parties involved. If there is no objections raised by either side within 21 days from the day the award would be published, it becomes binding on the parties. However, if there is any objection it would now be referred to the final authority.
National Industrial Court. The national industrial court is the highest authority in dispute settlement machinery. It is equal to a high court and certain cases can be referred directly to it particularly the essential services. It is also known as a court of Appeal or Court of first instance. It examines and interprets the decisions of the lower machineries and interprets collective agreement. Industrial court comprises mainly of five members with a serving or retired high court judge as the chairman. The awards of the National Industrial Court are enforceable and offenders could be pulled up for contempt.
According to Bankole (2011) conflict handling behaviour as a concept refers to the behavioural orientation of an individual in conflict situation. Such an orientation essentially determines the style the individual or group will adopt in situation requiring conflict resolution. Five such styles or strategies have been identified by Mitchell (2002) which are:
1. Dominating strategy
In using this strategy, there is much reliance and use of position, power, aggression, verbal dominance and perseverance. The main goal is a win-lose outcome while the need of the other bargaining party is ignored. It is power oriented and precipitates dissent and requires greater use of assertiveness for the other party to gain in the outcome. The style may be effective where the locus of power is uneven but will most likely lead to alienation and another day of grievances, negotiation, deadlock and so forth.
2. Accommodating strategy
The strategy presents a lose-win scenario in which individual differences, as well as divergence of opinion and perspectives, are downplayed while areas of common interest are emphasized. Individual or group using this style shows higher concern for others than self.
3. Avoiding strategy
It is a lose-lose situation in which disputants are both physically and emotionally detached not from the problem but from the processes that will lead to resolution. Such tactics as postponement, avoidance of topical issues, jokes, noncommittal attitude and irrelevant remarks are common to individuals using this strategy. Obviously not an effective strategy as it fails often to move resolution of issues and the parties are left hurt, frustrated, annoyed, angry and resentful.
4. Collaborative strategy
The focus of individuals or group using this approach to handling dispute is collaboration, problem solving, high concern for self and others. Efforts are deliberately geared at identifying and resolving conflictual issues using flexible, novel and creative solution that leaves parties in a win-win state. The strategy when successfully applied will generate inclusiveness, satisfaction and cordial industrial relations atmosphere in both short and long run.
5. Compromising strategy
Compromise means give-and-take or sharing. It is an example of concessional bargaining style where concession is traded and satisfactory middle ground is attained. A unique approach aimed at production, remuneration and peaceful industrial atmosphere.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is an example of external dispute resolution technique aimed at lessening tension and generating trust between disputants. In some countries, it is a type of dispute resolution processes and techniques that act as a means for disagreeing parties to come to an agreement short of litigation. ADR has gained widespread acceptance among both the general public and the legal profession in recent years.
In fact, some courts now require some parties to resort to ADR of some type, usually mediation before permitting the parties cases to be tried. The rising popularity of ADR can be explained by the increasing case load of not settlement at mediation. The rising popularity of ADR can be explained by the increasing caseload of traditional courts, the perception that ADR imposes fewer costs than litigation, a preference for confidentiality, and the desire of some parties to have greater control over the selection of the individual or individuals who will decide their dispute.
ADR has been both, increasingly used alongside and integrated formally, into legal systems internationally in order to capitalize on the typical advantages of ADR over litigation which include the following; suitability for multi-party disputes, flexibility of procedure – the process is determined and controlled by the parties in the dispute, little wastage of time, lower costs, less complexity, parties choice of neutral third party (and therefore expertise in area of dispute) to direct negotiations/ adjudicate.
Other important outcomes are likelihood and speed of settlements, practical solutions tailored to party’s interests and needs (not rights and wants, as they may perceive them), durability of agreements, confidentiality, and the preservation of relationships and the preservation of reputations.
A growing no of organisations now have formal ADR policies using various combination of techniques such as;
Facilitation: It is a form of detriangle in which the third party, usually a manager, informally bring disputants to deal directly with each other in a positive and constructive manner.
Conciliation:It used when conflicting parties refuse to meet face to face. A neutral third party acts as a communication conduit with immediate goal to establish direct communication to explore common ground of understanding thereby resolving the dispute.
Peer review: A panel of trustworthy co-workers, selected (and rotated from time to time) for their objectivity and perhaps neutrality, hears both sides of the dispute issues in an informal and confidential manner. The decision of the panel may or may not be binding on parties depending on company’s policy.
Ombudsman: A well respected and trusted employee may be engaged to hear out the parties and to attempt a resolution of the dispute.
One could see that conflict though a part of organisational life can be anticipated and managed using both internal and external mechanisms. There are equally negotiation/bargaining strategies that are available to gain either cooperation or concessions in either win-win or win-lose situations. Recently the Alternative Dispute Resolution is gaining in popularity because it is less legalistic, cheaper, less time consuming and could achieve effective resolution of disputes if parties go into it in good faith.
This post aims to demonstrate and explain the properties and effects of static electricity, shedding…
Many of the everyday effects of electrostatics involve a charged object losing its charge and…
Area expansion of solids refers to the increase in the surface area of a solid…
The increase in the length of a body resulting from being heated is known as…
Different disciplines have developed theories of aging due to the complex nature of aging process.…
The 2023 Zambia Education Curriculum Framework (ZECF) has been developed not only to provide guidance…
Leave a Comment