| Integrated Conflict Management Systems |
Article Index for Integrated |
Website Links For Integrated |
Information AboutIntegrated Conflict Management Systems |
|
Integrated Conflict Management Systems by Jennifer Lynch, Q.C. An organization is a complex system of people, procedures, practices, policies, relationships, facilities, values, resources, cultures, services and products, production, activity and transformation. Some organizations are still taking a case-by-case approach to resolving disputes. These organizations see disputes as aggravating problems to be resolved, so that life can go back “as it should be”. Other organizations apply systems thinking to conflict management. They see conflict as an inevitable and necessary fact of life - as potential opportunities for learning, growth and transformation. They view conflicts as regular occurrences that contribute to the energy of the organization. They know that how conflict is managed will determine whether the experience is positive or negative, a risk or an opportunity and that high performing organizations need to create an environment- a ‘culture of conflict competence’ - where issues and concerns can be raised and dealt with respectfully and responsibly. These goals can be achieved by the implementation of an “Integrated Conflict Management Systems” – ICMS. ''' What is an Integrated Conflict Management System (ICMS)?''' The simplest way to describe an ICMS is to think of it as the structure and organizational support that creates a workplace culture where: everyone can raise any issue or concern with confidence that it will be managed respectfully and responsibly, and decisions are made, and problems solved, by taking into account the interests and input of those who will be affected. The importance of terminology: “Conflict” includes disputes and much more. “Management” includes resolution and much more. Many people, when hearing “Conflict management” think “Dispute Resolution. Yet these terms are not interchangeable. "Conflict" is a word that encompasses all disputes and much more. Conflict denotes any difference, problem, tension or dispute experienced by one or more people, whether or not the conflict has been brought to the attention of others. Conflict can be generally said to have become a dispute after there has been some stressed interaction and position-taking by the parties. The word “management" when used in the term “conflict management “ encompasses the entire range of prevention, management, and all forms of resolution including ADR. Integrated conflict management systems are a key part of organization development strategies.They are essential for success at transforming organizational culture. An ICMS has two components each with its own essential elements. ((Lynch, Q.C., Jennifer 1996) I. An enhanced Dispute Resolution Structure that provides many places and ways for raising issues and concerns and for finding solutions. The essential elements of an ICMS Structure are: scope, choices, options and safeguards. On its own, a dispute resolution structure is NOT a system. II. Organizational Support that facilitates the establishment and maintenance of a culture of conflict competence. The essential elements of ICMS Organizational Support are: leadership, coordination, internal capacity (skills and competency), communication and evaluation. The Evolution of ICMS This phrase ‘Integrated Conflict Management System” and much of the early and current work in the field are attributable to Dr. Mary P. Rowe, an ombudsman and special assistant to the president, and adjunct professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass. How did the ICMS evolve? As the trend toward negotiating and mediating grows, most companies have tried Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), some use it regularly, and in some jurisdictions, such as Ontario Canada, a mediation session is mandatory for all litigation cases. Yet as practical and effective as ADR can be, it still serves only the "back end" of disputing, usually long after the dispute arose. Disputes are often simply the symptom of an underlying problem. An ICMS lays the foundation for addressing the causes of the conflict, rather than just the dispute. What differentiates a system is that in addition to dispute resolution techniques, a system has features that focus on the ‘front end’: prevention of unnecessary conflict and (when conflict does arise) managing conflict respectfully and responsibly. The four generations of conflict management Organizations faced with conflict can resort to different approaches used alone or in combination for dealing with that conflict, including: 1. a “power-based” approach – the first generation 2. a “rights-based” approach - the second generation 3. an “interest-based” approach – the third generation, and 4. a “systems approach” – the fourth generation. In 2000 the Society for Professionals in Dispute Resolution approved “Guidelines for the Design of Integrated Conflict Management Systems” coauthored by Ann Gosline, Lamont Stallworth, Myrna Adams, Norman Brand, Cindy Hallberlin, Carole Houk, David Lipsky, Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., Nancy E. Peace, Dr. Mary P. Rowe and Anne Thomas – all pioneers in the development of ICMS. The Guidelines have been received as a welcome addition to the discipline. Why build an ICMS? - ICMS and Organizational Effectiveness A strong organization is based on a positive workplace culture of trust, commitment and respect. It’s common sense to state that better relationships build trust, commitment and respect. Yet common sense isn’t always common! Too few organizations make the link between the internal culture they develop and success with mission. When the culture of an organization is to not listen, to discourage input, operational effectiveness lags, and even serious tragedies and sabotage can occur. Creating and sustaining a positive workplace culture is a natural goal for any organization. It’s not just about creating a place where people want to work and can do their best – although that alone should inspire you as a leader. It’s also about organizational effectiveness – achieving the corporate mission and better meeting the needs of employees and customers. It’s just as critical to optimal performance as improving operations. An ICMS is at the heart of a positive workplace culture. Why? Consider: • A simple definition of culture is ‘how people treat each other’ (Rowe, Mary P.) . • How we treat each other when we are facing differences, have concerns, or are problem solving is at the core of achieving a positive workplace culture. • The first step – and it’s a big one - is to ensure that people need to feel comfortable raising any issue, difference or concern and to know how and where to do so. They need to feel confident that when they seek help or provide input that they will be respectfully heard and their concern responsibly dealt with. Yet we know from experience that the vast majority of people do and say nothing – for many reasons they just sit by and don’t contribute their point of view, letting their concern fester. So people need many places and ways to raise issues and concerns – and their input also needs to be encouraged. Why don’t people give input, or raise issues and concerns? A common problem in organizations is that employees often don’t feel that they can raise an issue or concern, no matter what their job or level. These are reasons commonly heard: o “People will think I’m not a team player, that I am a poor sport” o “No one will listen - my input’s not welcome o “No one will believe me” o “Nothing good will come of it – there could be bad consequences” o “I’m afraid of retribution” o “I don’t trust the system” o “Word will get out- I’ll lose my privacy” o “I don’t know where to go and I don’t have the skills to raise my concern” An ICMS provides the structure needed for employees to raise issues and concerns and the organizational support so that everyone will have the confidence and knowledge to do so knowing that they will be received respectfully and dealt with responsibly What is your organization’s conflict culture? Try this “Positive Workplace Culture Quiz”. It applies to YOU no matter what your level within your organization Which best describes you – A or B? 1. When you are making decisions: Do you: A. Consider who might be affected, encourage their input, listen with an open mind and respond with respect? or B. Just go ahead and decide without much input? 2. When you have some input to give: Do you: A. Always feel confident with your peers and superiors that you can raise issues and concerns and explain what’s important to you, knowing that your input will be respectfully received? or B. Often hesitate, because you’re unsure how your input will be received? 3. When you are experiencing a difference with a peer or superior: Do you: A. Address it early and well on your own, or with assistance from someone you trust? or B. Let it escalate either by ‘flight’ (avoiding it) or ‘fight’? The “A” answers best describe a conflict competent organization and getting you there is what the ICMS is all about. ''' ICMS and optimal performance''' An ICMS will help you to foster and sustain the culture necessary to support optimal performance because it: Promotes organizational effectiveness through: o enhancing consultation and collaboration – headquarters with the field and cross-functionally to build stronger organizational relationships o ensuring better informed, coordinated and communicated decisions o reducing distraction, time spent, and drain on resources from disputes and from responding to complaints and legal proceedings o enhancing communication, teamwork and collaboration that build trust, between headquarters and the field, and within organizational units o allowing every employee to focus on operations by reducing distraction and stress in the workplace. o providing better customer/client service through improved culture and communication skills. Supports proactive conflict management as daily practice in all areas and relationships, internal and external by: o focusing on prevention of destructive conflict through structure and organizational support so that differences and conflicts don’t escalate into disputes. o improving and broadening dispute resolution options o aligning all of the organization’s conflict management functions: e.g. line management, ethics, legal, human resources, labour, ombudsman, etc. o building structure and organizational support based on ‘interest based’ or ‘cooperative’ problem solving; - the ICMS helps to anticipate and solve differences and problems, and helps people work together more effectively as co-workers, teams and employees. The heart of the ICMS is 'interest based’ or ‘cooperative’ problem solving. This means that when people are considering issues and solving problems, they encourage and welcome input.They ask, listen and discuss what’s important. That’s how better decisions are made. It’s the key to trust, commitment and mutual respect. Does your organization need an ICMS? – the 5 Cs: Causal factors (Lynch, Q.C., Jennifer 1998) Reasons for taking a systems approach: Potential benefits, and the “5 Cs” Causal factors The following “5 Cs” checklist is a good place to start in assessing an organization’s need for a conflict management system. If the answer to more than one is, “Yes”, the organization should consider ICMS. The checklist includes: 1. Compliance: Is there legislation or policy that requires the organization to introduce a new approach to conflict management? Some examples: Canada Customs and Revenue Act: In Canada, one of the first examples was the Canada Customs and Revenue Act that established, among other things, a new employment regime for 45,000 public servants. Because the Agency’s employees would no longer be subject to the Public Service Employment Act, a number of employee rights-based recourse mechanisms (such as the right to appeal staffing decisions to the Public Service Commission) would no longer be available to employees. The Agency formed a Recourse Design Team, and built on the Team’s recommendations to develop a fully integrated conflict management system which was launched in 1999. (Note: in 2004 the Agency was again reorganized and is now the Canada Revenue Agency). In the United States there are also examples of mandatory compliance such as the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, the Executive Order on Civil Justice Reform and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998, which have required the use and development of alternative dispute resolution approaches, and training. While not the “purest” reason for launching a conflict management approach, compliance can be a forceful catalyst, causing an organization to explore more modern methods of managing its conflict. In 2005, Canada proclaimed the Public Service Modernization Act. The Act presages a new way of doing business within the federal government, and promises to be the keystone to initiatives to foster and sustain a new culture of cooperative problem solving between management and labour. Amongst many innovative approaches, perhaps the most significant is found in s. 207, which requires the most senior public servants in each core department or agency to establish an “informal conflict management system” (ICMS), to be developed in consultation with employee representatives. The basis of the ‘informal’ conflict management system is the introduction of updated dispute resolution frameworks- Component 1 of the Integrated Conflict Management System. A recent directive clarifies that the intention is also to have departments move towards prevention and better management of conflict by appointing an ICMS ‘officer’ responsible for the ICMS and reporting right to the top (not through levels of e.g. human resources or the legal department). The Act goes even further to require every department and agency to establish a consultation committee consisting of representatives of the deputy head and the bargaining agents for the purpose of exchanging information and obtaining views and advice on issues relating to the workplace that affect those employees, and to “co-develop” workplace improvements. By specifying a systems approach in s. 207- and the involvement of employee representatives in its development - Canada has taken world leadership in the evolution of organizational conflict management. 2. Costs: Are the direct costs, to the organization, of disputes higher than seems reasonable? Costs include legal fees, judgments and settlements, human resources dedicated to the administration of the internal recourse/grievance system and to the administration of litigation. What about the indirect costs, such as time spent by managers away from their core business, loss in productivity, employee absences and departures, increased stress, reduced morale, employee mistrust in management, and sabotage? Cost is often the first factor to drive a corporation’s move to change its method of managing conflict. 3. Crisis: Is the organization experiencing, or about to face, a crisis such as a walkout or strike, an avalanche of grievances, or a class action? Has it attracted unwelcome media attention from a single case, arising from harassment in the workplace, wrongful dismissal, fraud, or discrimination? Is there a major piece of litigation draining energies and resources? A crisis should be a clarion call for a systems approach, as only a systems approach will address the causes of conflict, target prevention, and provide managers with the skills necessary to manage future difficulties. 4. Competition: Is there competition for the organization’s managers, professionals and employees? Is the organization having difficulty attracting and retaining them? Does the business plan include providing better service to customers and clients, or forming strategic partnerships with its customers or others? These issues fall under the umbrella of overall “relationship management”. Today, corporations are acutely aware that better conflict management is a means to achieve better management of relationships and reputations because corporate conflict usually starts with some form of strained relationships, in three areas: 1. Employee issues including dismissals, harassment, collective agreements, and working conditions; 2. With contracts or understandings based on external relationships - issues arising from contract performance either by, or for the corporation; and 3. Issues with regulators or competitors. To better manage these relationships, corporations can look to a conflict management system as a key part of the solution. 5. Culture: Is the internal culture of the organization in alignment with its statement of ethics, its values, its mission statement, and with the manner by which it expects its employees to manage external relationships? Is a merger or acquisition contemplated or recently completed with other organization(s) that have a different culture? Organizations that have worked well alone can experience serious conflict when they are merged. Culture can be simply defined as “how people treat each other” (Rowe, Mary P.) and how people treat each other when they are experiencing conflict is at the core of culture. For example, consider: • How a police service that provides community based policing services, using collaborative partnerships with citizens, can be successful if its constables, after a day of interest-based community problem solving, are treated in a “rank is right” command and control manner for their own interpersonal or administrative complaints? • How a construction or engineering firm can expect its managers and front-line workers to develop consensual solutions to community, municipal or environmental issues, if they have not been provided with collaborative negotiation skills training, or if their internal practices do not mirror the same approach? • How a multinational corporation that uses hundreds of different suppliers and has thousands of customers, can require its marketing force or procurement department to deal in a fair and open manner and improve service delivery, if it is not internally transparent and does not support its staff in risk-taking? • How a university can successfully encourage healthy academic debate and grant degree programs in conflict resolution, yet fail to address its internal conflicts between faculty/administration/staff and students in an interest based way? • How two airlines with different service practices, histories, rivalries and seniority policies can plan for a smooth merger without engaging in a conflict assessment and providing for methods to surface and resolve the inevitable conflicts that will arise? • How a revenue collection agency can increase taxpayer compliance through new practices of collaborative problem solving with the taxpayer, if the collection officer faces internal rules-based systems that seem even more rigid? |
|
|