Workplace Conflict Resolution - Case Study Example

Name: ............................... Student Number: .............................. Subject: LB5530 – Conflict Resolution Processes. Lecturer’s Name: ................................. Task 3: Case Study and Advice. Topic 3: Workplace Conflict Resolution: Tender Submission for Flight Centre Travel Group Due Date: June 2nd, 2014 Word Length: ......................... Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 The Nature of Conflict 4 Conflict Context 5 Why is Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) recommended for FCTG and SFC? 6 Negotiation 7 Features of the Proposed CRP 8 How will the CRP apply to the Conflict? 9 Reasons for Recommending the CRP 12 Conclusion 12 Introduction The workplace environment exposes workers/employees to colleagues from different backgrounds with different needs and motivations. The workers have different roles and job descriptions, and they work under supervisors and managers. Owing to the existence of different powers within the organisational structure, there is a potential chance for workplace conflicts arising as a result of employees failing to adhere to the boundaries. Boundaries relate to the bridge, policies and employee guidelines that govern the employer-employee relationship, which, when broken, a conflict will arise. Flight Centre Travel Group (FCTG), parent company to the Student Flight Centre (SFC), has received negative publicity because of its failure to address workplace bullying within its organisational structure. Bullying in the workplace is a critical issue, since it affects the way in which employees work. Three out of five workers left SFC because of a manager’s bullying behaviour. The Fair Work Act protects workers from unfair working environments. Forms of bullying include unnecessary increase of workload and humiliating employees, which could lead to detrimental results such as suicide, ill health and injury. The workplace culture of FCTG is also a concern, and this tender document seeks to identify various ways in which FCTG can adopt a workplace conflict process that will also be adopted at SFC. FCTG is experiencing these problems because of failing to implement an internal process that deals with workplace conflicts. There are no reporting mechanisms to deal with employee bullying, intimidation and harassment, meaning that the employees have to find redress elsewhere. An effective conflict resolution process (CRP) is necessary not only to protect the reputation of the organisation but also to create a culture that embraces internal dispute resolution processes that protect both the employer and employee from negative publicity. The Nature of Conflict Prior to any CRP, it is important to understand the nature of a conflict. A conflict occurs when ‘two or more people communicate, and one of the parties misinterprets the words especially when serious issues anger another’ (Bryson, 1997). Roloff (1987) argued that a conflict by its very nature is an interactive process, which manifests itself as an incompatibility, a disagreement or dissonance amongst the different entities that exist within the organisation. In determining whether a conflict exists within the organisation, one needs to show that one or more of the employees are engaging in activities that are different from rules, legislation or policies within the organisation and as set by the state. In ‘People who Feel Harrassed Need a Complaint System with both Formal and Informal Options’, an article written by Mary Rowe, she clearly asserts that those who require a CRP in the workplace are those who are considered to have the least amount of power (Rowe, 1990). In regards to FCTG, the main area that led to the conflict of bullying at SFC was the use and abuse of power by the manager. Power within an organisation may be considered as the ‘balance of the inequality or advantage of the resources that exist in the workplace, and the abuse of this power leads to conflict’ (Connell, 1987). The reason why FCTG needs a conflict resolution mechanism is to ensure that its image as a major flight company is protected. This includes not only its company image, but also the shareholders’' confidence. An instance of a dispute in the public domain damaged the reputation of the company, which led to public condemnation about the acts of its managers. One way to manage the negativity is to ensure that the internal conflict mechanisms are working to prevent conflicts from damaging the image of the company. Bullying and intimidation are not the only cause of conflicts within the workplace; clashing personalities, competition, perceived interference from colleagues, gossiping and fighting also lead to conflicts. Unlike short disputes or one-off incidents, a conflict persists for a longer duration because often the issue remains unresolved (Sims, 2001). Notably, the three employees supporting bullying claims at FCTG do not only rely on one incident, but numerous incidents that led them to stop working for FCTG. This means that FCTG failed to address the conflicts at an early stage, leaving the state of affairs unresolved, causing the conflict to escalate to a potentially damaging workplace situation. The importance of a dispute resolution process is ensuring that the conflicts are resolved at the earliest possible stage. Conflict Context Workplace bullying and intimidation as conflicts propagate at different levels within the workplace. At an individual level, the conflict involves the three employees against the manager; these are the two main parties to the conflict with the manager being the perpetrator. The employee’s interests are in conflict with those of the managers, hence creating a conflict. At the workplace level, the workplace refers to the environment in which employees and the employers work and integrate. Bullying and intimidation occurs within the workplace at both SFC and FCTG, and if it occurs within the confines of the work environment, the employee could sue either for damages or over their rights. The societal level refers to the social environment composed of the entire public. The Australian public perception including the citizens, media and advocacy groups wait to see how FCTG and SFC will deal with the revelation that employees exist within its premises that practice bullying. The fact that it is amongst the largest flight companies, the conflict affects its reputation, the shareholder value and profits, and it could become a company of public ridicule if the matter is not resolved. Culturally, bullying and intimidation at FCTG paints a grim picture about the workplace environment. Workplace environments are thought to be safe and secure, allowing the employees to fulfil their duties and obligations. Culturally, the society views bullying, harassment and intimidation as tortuous misconduct and believes that the perpetrator should be punished for bullying (Field, 2010). Why is Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) recommended for FCTG and SFC? The conflict currently plaguing the organisation is bullying, intimidation and harassment, something that is internal to an organisation but has unforeseeable consequences, especially to the public and shareholders. It has created a negative image of the organisation, and the issue revolves around the alternative means of conflict resolution that employees in FCTG and SFC can access to ensure they are assisted in solving existing disputes. This can only happen if an effective mechanism of CRP is in place within the organisation. CRPs commonly adopted by organisations are usually the ADR processes, which are considered to have an advantage over the litigation process because they are relatively cheaper compared to litigation or going to court (Tillet & French, 2010). The ease of using the ADR mechanism within the organisation requires the parties involved to be in control of the entire process, as the conflict is likely to be settled much faster. In many instances the proceedings are covered by confidentiality agreements and the chances of getting to the public domain is lessened (Spencer, 2011). The outcome of the conflict is not limited and defined by a judge or court because the parties to the dispute can agree on the terms of the settlement (Cornelius & Faire, 2006). An internal dispute resolution process in the form of ADR is crucial for FCTG because it leads to greater employee satisfaction and retention of the pre-existing relationship that exists between the employer and employee. The fact that the three employees have already left SFC means that leaving workplace conflicts unresolved may lead to the loss of workers and a lesser chance of managing conflict. In regard to costs, ADR is relatively cheaper than litigation because it is usually faster, and different approaches such as arbitration and mediation can be adopted to address issues relating to the conflict, thus reducing the risk of instituting weak cases, since it does not depend on the win-lose process of litigation (Jackson, 2001). Negotiation There are numerous dispute resolution processes available for FCTG, which ensure that conflicts within the workplace are resolved without risk of damaging the reputation of the organisation. According to Spencer and Hardy (2009), the different forms of dispute resolution processes include mediation, negotiation, conciliation, arbitration. Negotiation is considered a preeminent way of solving conflict; that is, resolving a problem that already exists and finding a way of defining the relationship between the parties in the future. Whenever conflicting parties engage in negotiations, they often expect a give and take solution despite the fact they may at times have interlocking goals, which cannot be achieved independently. Despite the similarity in goals, these parties often do not need similar results (Goldberg, Frank & Rodgers, 1992). Bullying and intimidation within the workplace is often caused by an imbalance of power. The negotiation process seeks to balance the needs of the workers, ensuring that the needs of the victimised workers are met. This is realised through a process where disputants can either force the other to comply with the requirements, modify their requirements or compromise with the conflicting party to find a mutually acceptable solution (Shane, 1995). The outcome of a negotiation can be win-win, win-lose or lose-lose but it is open to a wide range of settlements. It is important to state that the negotiation process, especially the interest-based negotiation, is an integrative process, and therefore, the agreement reached by the parties has a non-fixed outcome. The conflicting parties are responsible for determining the outcome as, in a negotiation process, the conflicting parties are in complete control of the entire negotiation process. The stages involved in the interest-based negotiation process are the preparation, the building of a relationship, the exchange of information, persuasion and the final agreement (Ury, 1991). Culture plays an important part in the negotiation process in terms of the typical behaviours associated with the parties in the negotiation. These include promoting interests that revolve around the culturally accepted aspects, while rejecting those that contravene either the organisational or the societal culture. In most cases, a resolution is often arrived at when the parties involved agree to compromise some of their initial issues. When the negotiation process is difficult to control, different strategies can be adopted to address the interests of the parties and their priorities. These strategies, which can be confrontational, motivational, informational or influential, direct the powers at play in the negotiation process (Ury, 1991). Features of the Proposed CRP The advantages of the negotiation process are as follows: a. Negotiation is voluntary in that the conflicting parties willingly agree to be involved in the process to find a solution. These parties are not bound to accept the outcome of the process. The parties can also choose to be represented by a lawyer in the negotiation. b. It is confidential and the parties can decide to subject themselves to a disclosure agreement. c. The process is non-adjudicative and the parties, with the help of their legal representatives, are the only people who determine the outcome of the negotiation. d. It can be either bilateral or multilateral, that is, involving two or more parties. e. It is informal, and the parties are free to set their own rules to govern the negotiation process. This is because every situation presents different cases that require different rules of engagement. f. It is highly flexible, since the parties are free to choose when and how to conduct the negotiation process. Conflicts often vary depending on the individual and the subject of conflict. An interest-based approach would be ideal because the process would involve the determination of the best solution to serve the interests of the conflicting parties. g. There is no need to seek recourse and redress from third parties, and there is an assumption that the parties will conduct the negotiation in good faith in a way that reflects the interest of all parties. h. It is relatively cheaper and faster than the litigation process. The disadvantages of the negotiation process are as follows: a. It is highly unsuitable where there is an inequality in the parties’ bargaining power, especially in situations where an employee is negotiating with his or her employer. It would therefore be necessary to include the services of lawyers to ensure a neutral ground (Tillet & French, 2010). b. Where the negotiating parties have unequal power, the outcome may disadvantage the weaker party unless they are represented by a lawyer. c. The absence of a neutral party in the process may lead to the parties being unable to reach an agreement sooner and the parties could take advantage of each other. d. Where the issues in the conflict are not amenable to negotiation, there is little room to achieve an understanding. This is especially true in situations where the conflicting parties desire to win without considering the interest of the other party. e. It is a stalling tactic that one party may use to prevent the aggrieved party from asserting their rights through arbitration or litigation. How will the CRP apply to the Conflict? The most important issue that FCTG needs to address prior to establishing the ADR mechanism or CRP is to create a dispute resolution committee or board that hears complaints about workplace bullying within the workplace. A committee needs to be established at their subsidiary to hear complaints directly from the employees. The proposed committee at SFC may be named SFC Conflict Resolution Board (SFCCRB). The FTCG can have an appeals board (FCTG Conflict Resolution Appeals Board [FCTG CRAB]) where employees who are not satisfied by the decision of the SFCCRB can appeal to the FTCG before finding other avenues to resolve their cases. This arbitration strengthens the outcomes of the negotiation process. The negotiation process of solving disputes is a consensual process; that is, the parties to the dispute, FCTG, SFC and the workers, consent to have the conflict resolved through negotiation. In negotiation, the parties to the dispute interact and discuss amongst themselves, or through their counsels, who provide necessary advice, to arrive at an amicable and understandable agreement (Fisher et al, 1991; Ury, 1991). The use of a representative is beneficial for legal assistance, fairness and consistency in the process (Moore, 2003). The disadvantages are that they can potentially polarize the relationships between the conflicting parties. In addition, they bureaucratise the negotiation process making the decision process longer (Moore, 2003). The important aspect of negotiation is that no one party goes home empty handed; it is a win-win situation (Ury, 1991). Negotiation is a private way of solving disputes and it is at times considered a faster, cheaper and more convenient way of ending a conflict than the other forms of ADR (Spencer & Hardy, 2009). However, one of the main negatives of negotiation is that there is no guarantee that the problem will be resolved (Fisher et al., 1991). When a conflict such as bullying is reported to the SFCCRB, the SFCCRB will help the parties involved to find possible solutions. The SFCCRB sets the appropriate platform for negotiations. Problem solving is considered an interest-based approach to solving disputes, which is finding an amicable solution that addresses the parties’ interests (Burton, 1990). In the initial stage of the conflict, problem solving will act as a way of shifting the employee away from adversarial processes and focus the employee on solving the problem. Problem solving taken as an approach for SFCCRB will involve trying to understand the behavioural dimensions of the problems, the actions causing the problems and the effect this behaviour has on the employees. This will ensure that the relationship between the employer and employee is maintained, rather than constrained, and that the conflict remains within the confines of the workplace. Negotiation is important because it ensures that the conflict remains private and confidential, in-house and protects the entire conflict from getting to the public domain (Tillet & French, 2010). Negotiation will seek to achieve and adopt a reasonable way of ending the conflict with both parties having a win-win situation. In many instances, the relationship of the employer and employee are maintained, because it is a CRP process, meaning all individuals need to be willing to engage in the negotiation process. What if negotiation fails to bring to an end the dispute? FCTG and SFC are open to adopting mediation and conciliation, subject to the consent of the parties. Arbitration, which can also be used to solve internal disputes, is usually considered a quasi-adversarial process because of the use of arbitrators, either formally and informally (Waye, 2006). Arbitration can be recommended for the FCTG CRAB resolution board. However, its complexity requires the use of external arbitrators in finding solutions to the dispute. FCTG CRAB needs to ensure that the employees signs an arbitration agreement prior to joining FCTG stating that in case of conflict, they will submit to the FCTG CRAB for arbitration of the conflict. This ensures that the conflict is handled within the institution and the reputation of the company remains intact. As arbitration is confidential, the arbitrators and the parties are bound by the arbitration agreement not to discuss the issues under arbitration, and after finding a solution to the problem, the parties bind themselves to a confidentiality agreement (Burton, 1990). Reasons for Recommending the CRP The CRP processes are highly recommended for FTCG and SFC for the following reasons: a. They protect the reputations of FTCG and SFC. Because the failure to address workplace bullying and intimidation at SFC led to negative publicity and created a bad reputation for FTCG with the public, a CRP attempts to ensure disputes are solved in-house and will not get into the public domain unless FCTG and SFC are unable to resolve the conflict. b. They enhance the employer-employee relationship since the employee will know that his work environment is protected. c. They save FTCG and SFC the cost of litigation d. They enhance public confidence in FTCG and SFC as a result of its workplace policy regarding conflict resolution. Conclusion FCTG and its subsidiary must have a conflict resolution mechanism that easily addresses issues that affect its employees within the workplace. As identified, the main area that brings conflict in the workplace environment is power and the inequalities that exist between the employees and the employer, managers and supervisors. Negotiation resolves conflict related to power and inequality by engaging the conflicting parties in a process that will enhance a compromise. A CRP that incorporates mediation, conciliation, arbitration and negotiation is crucial in ensuring that an employee conflict does not affect the image of the organisation or reputation. The success of an organisation or company and retention of employees entirely depends on how well the organisation handles internal conflict leaving managers and employees satisfied with their jobs. References Bryson, D. (1997). And the leopard shall lie down with the kid: A conciliation model for workplace disputes. Australian Dispute Resolution Journal, 8, p. 245. Burton, J. W. (1990). Conflict: Resolution and prevention. New York: St Martin’s Press. Connell, R.W. (1987). Gender and power. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Cornelius, H. & Faire, S. (2006). Everyone can win: Responding to conflict constructively. Prymont: Simon and Schuster. Field, E. (2010). Bully blocking at work: A self-help guide for employees and managers. Bowen Hills, Qld: Australian Academic Press. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin Books. Goldberg, S. G., Frank, E. A. & Rogers, N. H. (1992). Dispute resolution: Negotiation, mediation, and other processes (2nd ed.). Boston: Brown and Company. Jackson, D. (2001). Meeting the challenge of institutionalising ADR: Lessons from the workers compensation resolution service. Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal, 14, p. 36. Moore, C. (2003), The mediation process: Practical strategies to resolving conflict. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Roloff, M. E. (1987). Communication and Conflict. In R. Berger & S. H. Charlie (eds). Handbook of communication science (pp. 484-534). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Rowe, M. (1990). People who feel harassed need a complaint system with both formal and informal options. Negotiation Journal, Vol. 6, Issue 2, pp. 4-5. Shane, M. B. (1995). The difference between mediation and conciliation. Dispute Resolution Journal, 50(3), p. 311. Sims, R. R. (2001). The challenge of front-line management: Flattened organizations in the new economy. Westport, Conn: Quorum Books. Spencer, D. (2011). Principles of dispute resolution. Prymont: Thomas Reuters. Spencer, D. & Hardy, S. (2009). Dispute resolution in Australia: Cases, commentary and materials (2nd ed.). Prymont: Lawbook Co. Tillet, G. & French, B. (2010). Resolving conflict (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ury,W. (1991). Getting past no: Negotiating your way from confrontation to collaboration. New York: Bantam Books. Waye, V. (2006). A guide to arbitration practice in Australia (2nd ed.). Adelaide: University of Adelaide and the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators. Read More