Increasingly, non-unionized companies and organizations are taking
steps to address conflicts that may arise in the workplace, by designing
internal dispute resolution systems. Disputes in the workplace take
many forms and mechanisms to address them may be implemented for many
reasons.
Some initiatives are anticipatory in nature; that is, they are put
into place as a consequence of decisions or events that are likely
to impact on employees. Examples may include restructuring, changes
in methods of performance appraisal and other such human resource
decisions. On the other hand and more commonly, companies and organizations
find themselves having to develop a dispute resolution system after
encountering repeated conflicts, for which there is no effective process
or their usual process is ineffective. Issues such as workplace harassment,
discipline problems, communication breakdown and so on can be destructive
to the ill-prepared company or organization. Reacting on a case-by-case
basis or without relevant and user-friendly policies and procedures
is not ultimately prudent. In any case, conflict in the workplace
of any nature can contribute to a poisoned environment, lack of productivity,
absenteeism, tension-filled workplaces and so on.
What does a company need to consider in designing a suitable dispute
resolution system? The following factors are just some of the variables
to be explored.
Cost
How much a company or organization is willing to spend is a starting
point and will of course determine the extent to which it can develop
a tailor-made dispute resolution program. If for instance, there has
been a great deal of litigation relating to workplace harassment and
employee disputes (employee/employee, manager/employee), the cost
analysis is different than for the facility that has had little or
no litigation and does not realize the potential expense.
For the purpose of developing a dispute resolution program there
needs to be buy-in, meaning top down acceptance of the concept and
the commitment of the funds to properly support the system, its ongoing
development, implementation and evaluation. Essentially, this means
that management at the highest levels need to accept the importance
of having a system to address disputes. Some companies may see this
as risky. In fact, there is a view that dispute resolution systems
open up the flood gates for complaints, including ones that are vexatious
and malicious. However, it is helpful for organizations to conduct
a risk analysis as part of the cost assessment. Besides considering
the costs of having a system versus the costs of not having one, e.g.
cost of past and potential litigation, risk analysis involves considering
the risks of implementing as opposed to not implementing a program
in terms of costs, such as the impact of low morale, increase of stress
leaves, absenteeism, reduced productivity, etc. Costs such as these
are not only wasteful, but also detrimental, as they can perpetuate
a cycle of unnecessary negativity in the workplace.
The types of expenses companies and organizations consider are:
- having a “dispute audit” conducted, to determine
the nature and type of disputes occurring, the frequency, the persons
involved (e.g. level, relationship)
- hiring a Dispute Resolution (DR) Consultant to develop and implement
a pilot dispute resolution model, including:
- drafting policies and procedures and relevant forms
- training internal persons as participants in the program, e.g.
mediators
- preparing “promotional” materials to “advertise”
the pilot to stakeholders
- monitoring and evaluating the pilot
- reworking and refining the pilot
- devising ongoing techniques to evaluate the success of the program
and the requirements for sustaining an ongoing program
Some tasks can be carried out by a dispute resolution committee or
a staff member who is designated by the company or organization as
the coordinator of the program. Their time of course is still a cost.
Other companies or organizations prefer to retain a DR Consultant,
to develop and implement a system in cooperation with the facility.
This initial step is a major consideration. The program’s credibility,
acceptance, success and usage will be contingent on choosing the right
DR Consultant and/or the right internal staff to participate in the
planning of all aspects of the program. In either case, these types
of programs are typically within the purview of a Human Resource department.
Audit
If nothing else is outsourced, an audit of an organization or business
is best conducted by an external, neutral person, such as a DR Consultant.
Determining the climate and culture of a workplace is crucial, as
is ascertaining the frequency and nature of disputes that may be impacting
on an entity. It is especially important to gain an objective perspective
on what the stakeholders identify as issues and concerns that need
to be addressed in the workplace. Similarly, an audit helps identify
what dispute resolution processes may be considered most helpful to
the stakeholders.
Focus groups, individual direct or phone interviews, questionnaires
and other ways to gain information may be used. Where confidentiality
is a possible and likely concern, ways to ensure that people can provide
feedback on a no-identification basis is necessary.
Representative Committee
A committee of people who represent both management and non-management
is helpful in the development and implementation of a dispute resolution
program. Staff at all leves who have demonstrated strong leadership
skills, who are well-respected, who are committed and willing to devote
time to the project should be considered. It is also helpful to include
a member of the Human Resource department. The size depends on the
organization. The functions of a committee of this nature may include:
- to consider how best to obtain feedback from staff, e.g. how to
present the concept and gain interest, etc.
- to work with a DR Consultant on all aspects of the development
and implementation of the dispute resolution pilot
- to review Policies and Procedures and forms for the program, drafted
by a Consultant
- to interview and select participants, e.g. internal mediators,
peer advisors, etc.
- to develop and review materials drafted for the promotion of the
program and provide information on an ongoing basis to staff
- to monitor the success of the program
- to evaluate the program and collaborate on ways to rework it,
if necessary
Training
In the design of many dispute resolution systems, companies and organization
decide to train internal people to act as peer advisors, mediators,
ombudspeople, etc. On the other hand, external persons may be considered
more suitable. This of course, depends on the input gained from the
stakeholders about acceptable and appropriate mechanisms for the organization,
its culture and the nature of disputes.
A DR Consultant can tailor-make training programs for specific organizations,
so that pertinent disputes are considered through interactive and
experiential exercises, such as case study role plays. Some communities
offer generic training through private programs or post-secondary
institutions (colleges, universities). These may not always serve
an organization’s purposes in terms of providing role plays
and considering issues pertinent to the company (as specifically designed
programs are able to do). Ensuring that those staff who are going
to fulfil the identified roles are properly trained is a major responsibility
and vital to the success of a dispute resolution system.
Promotion
Promoting a dispute resolution system to employees requires much thought
and consideration about what potential users need to know to easily
access it. Typically, the information about the program’s existence
needs its own promotional effort, separate from the procedural steps
for using the system. It is one thing to alert everyone to its existence,
through meetings, newsletters, e-mails or any other communications
that may commonly be used to inform staff. It is another matter to
ensure the procedures for accessing the system are readily available,
clearly understandable and easy to use.
Monitoring, Evaluating, Reworking
To effectively establish a viable dispute resolution system, it is
necessary to build in ways to monitor, evaluate and rework the processes,
as necessary. Conducting a six month pilot for instance, helps work
out the “kinks” and provides the facility with the opportunity
to refine the processes. To this end, it is also necessary to evaluate
the system, for instance, by having the “providers” and
the “users” provide their feedback in confidential ways.
Monitoring, evaluating and reworking are ongoing requirements to
ensure the use and success of any dispute resolution program.
Summary
Increasingly, companies are considering the importance of providing
mechanisms to address conflicts that may arise in the workplace. Accomplishing
such an objective has many advantages. Being able to deflect and resolve
disputes cannot help but contribute to the wellness of workplaces.
A work environment that acknowledges that disputes are inevitable
also lends to the perspective that disputes do not have to be destructive.
Avoidance of litigation and the associated costs of unrest for employees
also effects the organization’s bottom line. To develop an effective
system however, it is necessary to specifically design the program
to the organizational structure, culture and needs of the stakeholders.
Ensuring that access to the program is easy, friendly and responsive
is equally as important and will contribute to the use of and satisfaction
with the system.
Cinnie Noble, ACC, CM, LL.M. (ADR), is a lawyer-mediator and
ICF certified coach who created the CINERGY® model of conflict
coaching. She chairs the ACR Workplace Section’s new Conflict
Coaching Subcommittee and is co-chair of the ICF’s Special Interest
Group on Conflict Coaching.
