Conflict and Negotiation in an Organisation
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, now
we 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:
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.
<
p style=”margin-left: 77.3pt;”>
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Baba Vanga, a name that has gained prominence in mysticism and prophetic insight, was a…
The Prophecy of Nyirabiyoro is a fascinating piece of Rwandan history that has intrigued scholars…
In this blog post, we’ll explore the meaning behind "Asleep Among Endives," delving into the…
The concept of "Building Blocks Marketing" refers to a systematic approach to developing a marketing…
This blog post aims to provide a comprehensive exploration of the various types of interviews…
An annual marketing plan serves as the blueprint for business growth, allowing companies to strategically…