Mediation and Conflict Resolution for the Human
Resources Practitioner
Table of Contents
Introduction/Background Information.........................................
3
Problem Statement
.
.
.5
Literature Review
.
...
.6
Conclusions/Recommendations .16
Introduction/Background Information:
The Human Resources (HR) profession is one that exists in organizations in order to provide a resource that includes multiple areas of responsibility. These responsibilities usually include recruiting, benefits, compensation, performance management, and programs in which to entice organizational effectiveness through its members.
In one of the more challenging areas of this profession is in that of employee relations. This function is responsible for what many think the human resources profession is all about. Within these responsibilities conflict often arises since many of the discussions related to employee relations include, terminations, disciplinary actions, correcting performance, or to investigate management due to allegations related to the violation of law or policy. It is the times of conflict and disagreement between the individual and the organization in the form of supervision or policy that creates opportunities for these professionals in which to mediate and in many cases act as a participant in the issue at hand.
Often the HR representative is seen as the mediator and balancer of these conflicts and has been replied upon to see the issue from both the individual and organizational levels. This unfortunately has multiple challenges. First, the HR professional is often considered to be the advocate of the employee and often times the employee sees this person as a confidant and counsel towards their objectives. When the HR representative instead must protect the organization, now the confidant becomes the enemy. Therefore, it is necessary to demonstrate a sense of objectivity and professionalism when dealing with all members of the organization and to portray themselves as stewards of the organization first.
Members of leadership often see HR as the tool in which to yield and facilitate their objectives even at times that are not in alignment with organizational objectives, but the managers personal objectives. When disagreement between HR and management occur, often HR is considered to be the bureaucracy and its value is then questioned. Regardless, the HR mediator is challenged with controlling risk to the organization with regards to discrimination or harassment charges. These governmental and often times organizational imperatives must also come into the formula. To make this even more complicated, the HR practitioner often finds himself/herself as a participant of the conflict when disagreeing with either the employee or management in a matter. This independent perspective brings to it a greater challenge when it appears that the HR representative does not exist on either side of the conflict, but is established as a third party in the conflict itself. Such role confusion can bring questionability in the mind of both employee and management and creates challenges for the parties and in reconciling the conflict.
Problem Statement:
With regards to what is stated above, a significant challenge exists. How does one balance all of these perspectives while maintain relationships with management and employees? Certainly, the HR department wants to be both an advocate for the employee in the minds of the workforce. It wants to be considered a trusted advisor to management. All the while, attempting to align itself with organizational strategy and optimizing the people resources of the organization to reach success.
Clearly, there is quite a bit of confusion in these cases, but by using effective conflict resolution, mediation, and communication skills, there exists a center point in which the HR professional can be all that it wants to be. It is this balance where in lies success and effectiveness in dealing with the multitude of challenges organizations encounter daily.
In addition, the Human Resources function has an opportunity to promote effective conflict resolution and mediation skills into the organization so that members may resolve their conflicts amicably. Lastly, there is an opportunity to put a different face on conflict so that it is viewed as an avenue in which to collect feedback, enhance innovation, and further the organization (Wilmot & Hocker, p. 37, 2007).
Literature Review:
In order to better understand organizational conflict and the role of the Human Resources practitioner its necessary to better understand the dynamics of the organization from the perspective of the members of the organization.
The stigma in which exists for conflict that occurs in organizations need not be destructive, considering that the energy associated with conflict is harnessed and directed toward problem solving and organizational improvement. It is necessary, although that managing conflict effectively requires that all members of an organization understand the nature of conflict.
This thought that conflict cannot be contributory to the success of an organization is dysfunctional view of organizational conflict originates in the thought that that organizations are designed to achieve goals by creating structures that perfectly define job responsibilities, authorities, and other job functions.
The more innovative view of conflict sees it as a productive element source of innovation and development for the organization and should be an opportunity for organizational members to increase their knowledge and skills, as well as their contributions to productivity. Problems occur when leadership or employees seek to eliminate or suppress conflict in situations where it is either difficult or impossible to do so.
This perception often comes from the thought that when conflict does not occur, the organization is running soothingly. In correction assumptions that the balance of power exist appropriately and the structure is established that brings the highest level of effectiveness (Wilmot & Hocker, pp. 115-116, 2007).
This view of organizations and conflict causes problems. Unfortunately, most of us, consciously or unconsciously, value some of the characteristics of this "orderly" environment. Problems arise when we do not realize that this way of looking at organizations and conflict only fits organizations that work in routine ways where innovation and change are virtually eliminated.
The more progressive view of organizational conflict sees conflict as a productive force, one that can stimulate members of the organization to increase their knowledge and skills, as well as their contributions to organizational innovation and productivity. Unlike the position mentioned above, this more modern approach considers that the keys to organization success lie not in structure, clarity, and orderliness, but in creativity, responsiveness, and adaptability. The successful organization, then, needs conflict so that opposing views are discussed and new ways of doing things are created. This progressive view would also suggest that conflict provides people with feedback about how things are going. Even "personality conflicts" carry information to the manager about what is not working in an organization, affording the opportunity to view the feedback and incorporate it into his/her management approaches into the future (Bacal, 2004).
How people respond to conflict is also dependant upon the workplace and can also help in the perception of conflict as being a development opportunity. A recent study was conducted on more than 400 organizational members to gain more insight on how line managers react to power use of superiors and subordinates in conflict situations. The results showed, as expected, supervisors were more supportively reactive when the conflict was presented by a peer or superior when compared to a subordinate (de Reuver, 2006). The challenge here is to promoted conflict as a positive force regardless of the position in the organizational structure. The receptive supervisor being presented with an opportunity to deal with conflict regardless of where it comes from must be perceived as an opportunity to look at a business issue as an opportunity to growth. Such a submissive or superior posture in conflict, simply because of authority or power creates a barrier from in which conflict no longer becomes an advantage.
HR in the dual role of Negotiator and Mediator:
Often times, HR professionals find themselves as both the mediator and active negotiator when dealing with employee relations issues. There are multiple opportunities for the HR practitioner to optimize the discussion in order to create value and at the same time identify what is at the heart of the issue. Although not typical in most mediation situations, in the HR realm, understanding the environment and intricacies of the work unit or organization is necessary in order to evaluate all of the facts being presented. For example, knowing that the organization is struggling financially would bring to light why enhanced conflict is taking place. Learning that the core of the problem is an abusive supervisor in which employees are now adopting as their own is also useful. This challenge is for the HR mediator to also be an effective investigator and observer in order to collect the facts as well as understand the underlying issues.
It is important for the professional to focus on the issues related to interests and not positions. By understanding what the employee needs versus what is just being said permits the discussion to focus on the true issue at hand. This can only be accomplished by listening and probing to find what is at the core of the issue. A common mistake is for the mediator to assume that the employee is wrong simply because a policy or rule was broken. Effective listening concerning the background of the event, at times, permits exceptions to the rule that would not normally be realized without such exploration.
A common mistake that many negotiators make is to present a solution outright instead of brain storming with the employee. This turns the solution into a project in sales versus identifying mutually acceptable solutions. This also applies to interactions with management who desire to take a certain employee action. B understanding the other party position should be the starting point, but it must take a conscience effort in putting aside your own desire to move along in the process. This can be difficult for the time strapped HR professional with a large book of business. A very common mistake is for the HR practitioner to quickly identify a solution, help administer the issue and move forward. At the same time, many leaders also have this mentality and when these two individuals are linked, many truths are not uncovered.
It is also necessary to realize that in the end, the relationship must still continue. This might have been one instance, but if the other participant is a member of management or an employee, a win/lose outcome might have repercussions in decreased morale or a boundary in future talks (Worland, 2002). This reinforces the necessity of creating the negotiation as an interactive process or discussion which the intention of identifying an outcome that is reasonable to all. Of course, there are times where a decision must be made in which one side prevails, but still there exists an imperative to permit the other party to present his/her story or perspective. Such hard feelings, even if the individual is terminated can come back in a wrongful termination lawsuit or a very vocal external critique of the organization. Regardless, of where the discussion is heading its important to be ready to walk away from the talk if the negotiation fails. Also, its wise to have a fall back position in which to emerge. This can be especially useful for the HR professional who is engaged in salary negotiations with an employment candidate or employee attempting to secure a raise. In the case of the employment candidate, this can be especially difficult since often times so much effort has been placed during the recruiting and selection phase that many will jump through hoops. The penalty of folding in to a candidates desires can create other problems that are yet to be realized. Such pitfalls to giving in can include creating inequity in salary and benefit plans, inconsistent working arrangements, or providing uneven perks that would hinder morale and performance in other incumbent employees.
Flexibility is also a valuable aspect of negotiation with both leaders and employees. By the nature of many HR policies and practices, there does exist some flexibility in the administration of most policies. The ability to show such flexibility not only moves the discussion away from the perspective of dominating power, but permits the individual to be receptive by believing that they have alternatives. This opens the discussions around the ability to give a little on each side in order to meet within a reasonable middle ground.
Many times, the individual negotiating on behalf of the organization, including HR, does not really have the authority to make final determination or act on behalf of the organization at large. It is necessary that the other party or parties consider that you have the power to negotiate which is necessary for such negotiation to continue. Otherwise, the opposing party might attempt to seek a true decision-maker in which to present their case. To do this, it is necessary to project a level of confidence in which to convey to the party that you have been empowered to act upon the organization. Maricks F Masters, Robert R Albright, Frank Irr. (2003, June).
Facilitating Organizational Conflict Management:
The natural tendency of many Human Resources professionals is to be the mediator or the referee when conflict arises. But instead, if these professionals can be the facilitator of conflict management, the rewards of such practice should emerge.
It would make sense that HR be considered to be the proponent of constructive conflict, while supporting a method in which to deal with organizational conflict. In order for HR to promote such a mentality within the organization, an updated approach to conflict should take place (Bacal, 2004).
HRs Response to Conflict:
Where appropriate, its necessary for the HR practitioner to not see himself/herself as the solver of all problems. Instead, prioritization of the urgent conflict in which a mediator is required, should be at the top of the list. At the same time, other conflict that can be considered less important, the HR practitioner should see themselves as a resource in which the parties can resolve the conflict on their own. A good parameter in which to gauge whether or not HR should be involved is to ask oneself whether HRs facilitation to such conflict is in direct pursuit of the organizations goals or is in some way controlling a large liability to the organization (Mollica, 2005).
Employee Training:
Educating employees on the source of conflict and how to deal with it should be offered to all employees. Leaders should be trained on how to identify the signs that lead to such conflict and how the mediate solutions with employees whenever possible. Such training should be ongoing with updated as well as being given an opportunity to practice skills in order to solidify such training (Masters & Albright, 2003).
The Employee Role:
It is necessary for employees to understand that conflict resolution is part of their role as a member of the given organization. Establishing the expectation that they are responsible helps solidify their understanding and empowers them to seek solutions on their own. Meanwhile, it is important that they understand that other resources are available to them to include their leaders and human resources should the conflict become out of their control or is too dangerous to attempt to manage.
Process/Procedure:
As employees encounter conflict, they should have available to them a progressive system in which to respond. Understanding that the organization has established this progressive medium reinforces the necessity for employees to attempt dealing with conflict and if necessary what next steps are available for them in addressing their issues. Such guidelines also help employees and leaders avoid conflict and have a proactive method in which to operate. A popular method is in the adoption of an open door policy or an appointment of an Ombudsman, who is appointed to deal with such conflict.
Organizational Culture Considerations:
The organization should also communicate that conflict resolution is a critical element to being an effective team member. Other systems, such as job descriptions, performance evaluations, employment selection, and pay and rewards should include elements of this reinforcement. Elements might include a conflict management dimension on performance evaluations and questions to assess employment candidates on past conflict management skills.
Moving Conflict from the person to the behavior:
In order to have the conflict resolved as an organizational problem and not being taken as a personal issue, its necessary for organizations to reinforce the thought that conflict is a normal occurrence in organizations and is often the by-product of behaviors and not personality. This allows employees to use their problem solving skills in treating the issue as an organizational challenge and not a destructive force in which to avoid (Bacal, 2004).
Access to Leadership and Human Resources:
Throughout the training and communication process, its highly important that employees feel that they have access to leadership and human resources when their efforts fail. Having this next step in the process allows them to exhaust their options before reaching out. It is also highly necessary that some conflict requires the immediate attention of leadership or HR, especially when they involve violation of the law or poses a heightened level of risk to employees, visitors or organization. Its also important that employees see HR as a source of guidance and support when dealing with conflict and is available to them when resolution stalls or presents new complications.
HR as the Example:
Employees must see their leaders and Human Resources as the example in which to emulate. Therefore, HRs method in negotiating with employees concerning other matters will constantly be evaluated and scrutinized by all members of the organization. How HR members deal with conflict during negotiations or employee communications and exchanges will also be evaluated as to how effective they are in dealing with conflict. As with many areas, HR has an opportunity here to once again lead by example (Bacal, 2004).
The Emergence of Alternative Dispute Resolution:
A popular formal alternative to resolving complex conflict comes in the system known as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). This is a speedy and just means of resolving a dispute at a reasonable cost to both the parties. ADR is any method of resolving any dispute that does not require the ultimate decision to be made formally by a judge or jury. The objective is to keep disputes out of the court system in an effort to cut down the costs to businesses. The list of ADR techniques is growing nearly as fast as its popularity. Some of the ADR techniques most often employed today include conciliation, mini-trial, private judge, fact-finding, partnering, facilitated negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. Not only private enterprise, but also the government, attorneys, and the court system are advocating ADR (Mose & Kleiner, 1999).
Conclusion:
The notion that we should avoid conflict is one of the major contributors to the growth of destructive conflict in the workplace. The bad view of conflict is associated with a vision of organizational effectiveness that is no longer valid. There exists substantial benefit for organizations that can capture conflict and control it while optimizing the benefits that come along with such opportunity. At the center of it all is leadership and programs offered by organization to facilitate the desired use and control of conflict. The HR function of the organization is perfectly poised to facilitate this opportunity and the Employee Relations Representative who can act as the promoter of such communications. The rest exists in HRs ability to capture this challenge and realize further success by altering this mis-understood challenge.
References
Bacal, R. (2004). Organizational
Conflict-The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The Journal for
Quality and Participation, 27(2), 21-22.
Retrieved January 23, 2008, from
ABI/INFORM
Global database. (Document ID: 676021541).
De Reuver, R.
(2006). The influence of organizational power on conflict
dynamics. Personnel
Review, 35(5),
589-603. Retrieved April 6, 2008, from
ABI/INFORM Global database.
(Document ID:
1143130871).
Masters, M.F., Albright,
R.R, Irr, F. (2003, June). Another
hat for HR: Negotiator-in-
chief. HRMagazine, 48(6), 118. Retrieved April 6,
2008, from ABI/INFORM
Global database. (Document ID: 363354051).
Mollica, K. (2005, April). Stay
Above the Fray. HRMagazine, 50(4), 111-115.
Retrieved April
6,
2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 819064741).
Mose, D., Kleiner, B.H. (1999).
The emergence of alternative dispute resolution in business
today. Equal
Opportunities International, 18(5/6), 54-61.
Retrieved April 6, 2008, from
ABI/INFORM
Global database. (Document ID: 295481441).
Wilmot, W.W. & Hocker, J.L. (2007). Interpersonal Conflict,
Worland, D. (2002). Negotiating
on Behalf of Others. Personnel
Review, 31(1/2), 247-250
Retrieved April 6, 2008,
from ABI/INFORM Global database.
(Document
ID: 270923351).