The line managers are necessarily responsible for industrial relations in their particular areas of operations. They need the freedom to manage their departments or sections effectively according to agreed policies and with access to specialist advice. In this case the specialist advice comes from the employee relations manager.
What causes conflict? It seems that we all have in us an aggressive impulse – a kind of innate drive. And although there are many pressures on us to restrain this drive, we all behave aggressively to some extent at some time or other. Some of the outlets for our aggression are watching football, wrestling or boxing; but others are within our direct experience. And negotiations with our employing organization are a splendid arena for the expression of combat.
The second cause of conflict is a divergence of interests between those classified as managers and those seen as non-managers. The first group is seeking principally, such things as efficiency, economy, productivity and the obedience of others to their authority. The members of the other group are also interested in these things, but are more interested in features like high pay, freedom of action, independence from supervision, and scope for the individual. And, as you can see, these, to some extent, conflict.
Thirdly, and more fundamentally, is the clash of values between the two groups. Values about how people should behave, about allegiances to political parties, about social class attitudes. And most frequently about managerial prerogative. Managers tend to believe that management is their right - and so can't be questioned, whereas non-managers tend to think that managers should be more open to questioning and criticism.
One of the most likely sources of conflict is the urge to compete for a share of the limited resources of the organization - often seen as the money available for the payroll. Much of the drive behind differential pay claims is because one group needs to compete against other groups at a similar level to try and assert their position and status in the organization.
The fifth possible source of conflict is tradition. There are some organizations and some industries which are conflict-prone. The conclusion you might draw is that conflict is a bad thing - to be eliminated at all costs. However, that is not necessarily so. Conflict can bring some real benefits.
Firstly a conflict can clear the air by letting people get their bad feelings off their chest. By bringing a conflict into the open the parties can start talking about their differences and start looking for solutions.
The second point is about rules – new rules. Employment has a number of rules that govern it. Some of these rules are formal, such as the procedure for dismissal, while others are informal and unwritten, such as how we address each other. Conflict is one of the ways of changing the rules. Seen positively, it means that conflict is a creative process out of which change occurs, and that change can be good or bad. If conflict leads to a positive change, then it can and should be seen as a creative process leading to the introduction of new rules.
Just as conflict may be instrumental in changing the rules, it can also play a role in modifying the organization’s goals. Goals set by management may only be recognized as unpopular or really unattainable through conflict. Yet if this conflict is brought into the open it can lead to the positive step of modifying the goals in line with what is realistic. And through conflict this may be done earlier rather than later.
The final potential benefit of conflict is that it can lead the parties – the combatants – to understand their respective positions. Conflict brought out in the open leads to communication. And this communication about the issue enables the parties to see more clearly just what it is that they want, why they want it, and how justifiable it is. In challenging the position of the other party, they will come to a clearer understanding of where they stand, and why.
On the other hand, conflict clearly has its drawbacks.
Firstly, there is the waste of time – and energy. There is a very real risk that the conflict can become destructive when over-personalized, and individuals become obsessed with the conflict rather than what it is about.
A second drawback is the emotional stress for the participants, and the need to be involved in lengthy negotiations is a source of stress which some people find very taxing, while others find it stimulating.
A third problem area is the organizational stress and inefficiency usually associated with conflict. Situations such as striking, working to rule, working without enthusiasm, withdrawing co-operation, or the simple delays caused by long negotiations.
Another drawback is the risk that when a conflict bubbles to the surface, it may not be resolved to the satisfaction of the parties and may become a thorn in the organization’s side, a recipe for future industrial unrest.
The final point is about communication and the vital role it plays in management practice. During conflicts, the quality and amount of communication is impaired, as the parties become more and more entrenched in their positions. The danger here is that this can lead to greater feelings of hostility as the communication worsens.
