Line managers and the management of workplace conflict: evidence from Ireland

Line managers and the management of workplace

conflict: evidence from Ireland

Paul Teague, School of Management, Queen’s University of BelfastWilliam K. Roche, School of Business, University College DublinHuman Resource Management Journal, Vol ••, no ••, 2011, pages ••–••

In an effort to improve understanding of the role played by line managers in firms, this article examinesthe role of line managers and supervisors in the management of workplace conflict in firms in theRepublic of Ireland. The article finds that while line managers are commonly seen as playing a significantrole, they are also seen to do so often without organisational supports in areas such as training andperformance monitoring and are seen often to lack the confidence to act independently. Line andsupervisory ‘engagement’ in conflict management is found to be positively associated with a series oforganisational outcomes, including relative labour productivity, relative absence rates and the capacityto handle change compared with other firms in the same industry. Line and supervisory managementengagement in conflict management is found in turn to be associated with the use of commitment-oriented HR practices and with the adoption by firms of a proactive approach to conflict resolution.Contact: Paul Teague, Queen’s University Management School, 25 University Square, Belfast,Northern Ireland BT7 1NN, UK. Email: [email protected]_171 1..17

INTRODUCTION

Astrong theme in the literature on strategic HRM is that people-management functionsshould be delegated to line managers in organisations (Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007).Giving line managers greater people-management responsibilities is considered critical

to allowing the senior HR team to play a more active role in strategic decision-making, resourceallocation and agenda-setting inside organisations. Yet several studies that have examined theHR role played by line managers in organisations tend to reach the conclusion that they findit difficult to perform people-management activities (Purcell et al., 2009). A number of factorshave been identified as inhibiting line managers from carrying out an HR role effectively. Oneargument is that senior managers and line managers at times have differing views about whatHR responsibilities are actually being devolved (Wright et al., 2001). Another view is that linemanagers are sometimes not provided with adequate organisational support or training tocarry out assigned HR tasks (Renwick, 2003). Yet a further argument is that time constraintslead line managers to make tradeoffs between the different roles expected of them, whichoccasionally results in some HR tasks not being carried out properly (Nehles et al., 2006).Overall, while this literature does not disparage line managers, it does tend to highlight howtheir HR role is fraught with difficulties.

Thus, there appears to be a tension in the literature between the espoused HR role advocatedfor line managers and the actual HR role they perform inside organisations. Greater researchis required to obtain a fuller understanding of the HR role line managers can realistically makeinside organisations. The purpose of this article is to make a contribution to this effort. Inparticular, the article draws on a survey of conflict-management practices in companies inIreland to ascertain the role played by line managers in managing workplace problems andgrievances. The article is organised as follows. The first section outlines the theoretical

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2011.00171.x

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL •• NO ••, 2011 1

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Teague, P. and Roche, W.K. (2011) ‘Line managers and the management of workplace conflict: evidence fromIreland’. Human Resource Management Journal doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2011.00171.x

arguments that can be deployed in support of line managers playing an active role in managingworkplace conflict and explains the difficulties that may arise when trying to implement thisrole in practice. The following section reviews the relationship that is seen to exist betweenline-management engagement in conflict management and wider organisational outcomes. Thethird section assesses the factors that might influence the nature of line-managementengagement in conflict management. The next section sets out the research methodology usedto collect the data for the study. Then, the empirical findings of the study are presented, witha particular focus on reporting the outcomes associated with line-management engagement andthe influences on line-management engagement. The final section summarises the study’s mainconclusions and discusses their implications.

THE ROLE OF LINE MANAGERS IN MANAGING ORGANISATIONAL CONFLICT

Nearly all prescriptive accounts of the role of line managers in organisations identify problemsolving and the management of conflict as an integral feature of their work [see CharteredInstitute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), 2007, 2008a,b,c]. Various arguments have beenput forward suggesting how line managers can play a conflict-management role. First, linemanagers can help prevent workplace conflict by performing a mentoring and coaching role(CIPD, 2008a; Anderson et al., 2009). Coaching and mentoring activity provide line managerswith the opportunity to identify whether employees are encountering workplace problems andas a result can make early effective interventions to stave off conflict. Line managers can alsoplay an active role in the resolution of workplace conflict. A consensus exists in the specialisedliterature that conflict should be addressed as close as possible to the point of origin (Ury et al.,1989). Because they interact with employees on an ongoing basis, line managers andsupervisors are ideally positioned to play this role. In Ireland, Toner (1987) described the keyrole that line managers played in managing people and in addressing their grievances innon-union foreign-owned multinationals – features of line managers’ role associated with morepositive employee attitudes of grievance handling in such firms.

Of course, line managers will not always be able to perform this role as the nature of theconflict may be of such magnitude or complexity that the immediate involvement of seniormanagers, or other managers charged with roles in formal processes for conflict resolution, maybe required. In fact, being able to differentiate between problems that they should endeavourto solve and problems they should pass up the managerial hierarchy and/or into formalconflict-management mechanisms is an important skill that line managers should possess(Costantino and Merchant, 1996). Thus, line managers can potentially play decisive informaland formal roles in the management of workplace conflict.

However, a number of studies suggest that line managers may not fully implementorganisational policies related to the management of people (CIPD, 2007, 2008a,b,c). In broadterms, the problems associated with line managers performing an HR role can be addressedunder three headings – delegation, monitoring and alignment. Consider the delegationproblem. Several studies have suggested that the delegation process is fraught with difficulties,as line managers are seen as being preoccupied with getting work tasks completed and lessconcerned with the implementation of HR-related policies (CIPD, 2008b and McGovern et al.,1997). Monitoring and evaluation are also important to line managers delivering conflict-management policies properly as it allows the HR centre to make considered judgements aboutthe quality of the conflict-management role being performed by line managers. But somestudies suggest that this process operates in an informal, ad hoc manner in organisations(Whittaker and Marchington, 2003).

Line managers and workplace conflict

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL •• NO ••, 20112


The third problem that can disrupt the effective delivery of HR policies is what can beloosely termed the alignment problem. Supporting HR policies are required to allow linemanagers to carry out their role. Invariably, they will need formal training in problem-solvingtechniques. In addition, an incentive structure is likely to be needed to encourage line managersto take seriously their conflict-management responsibilities (Harris, 2001). Usually, thisincentive structure is seen to involve building the conflict-management activity of linemanagers into their performance appraisals to make them accountable for their actions in thearea (Hales, 2005). Reflecting the literature on the role of line managers and supervisors inconflict resolution, the following hypothesis can be proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Reflecting the various organisational ‘inhibitors’ that constrain the work andeffectiveness of line managers and supervisors (limited or uneven devolution from seniormanagers, poorly developed organisational supports and incentives, time constraints and thedemands of other job tasks), the pattern of line-management engagement in conflictmanagement will be found to vary considerably across different dimensions of this activity.

LINE-MANAGEMENT ENGAGEMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL OUTCOMES

Line managers, actively promoting positive working relationships and employee behaviour aswell as solving workplace problems, has been seen as an important aspect of high-performanceworkplaces (CIPD, 2008c). This observation chimes with the large number of studies that seekto establish a connection between HR practices and organisational performance, some of whichare more robust than others (Wall and Wood, 2005). Interestingly, the contribution that the HRactivities of line management make to organisational performance rarely figures in thisliterature (Boselie et al., 2005). Usually, the focus is placed on variables such as the degree ofshared commitment between management and employees, decentralised teams and decision-making structures, individual and group rewards systems, and job security. But just as theseelements of an innovative or high-commitment HR system may help create the internalbehavioural foundations for high-grade organisational performance, so too can effectiveconflict-management practices, particularly those that involve line managers. This is so becauseif employees feel their problems are not being properly addressed, they may becomedisengaged in one way or another from the organisation, with negative consequences fororganisational performance (CIPD, 2008c). Thus, it is important to assess the extent to whichline-management engagement in conflict management has a wider effect on key aspects oforganisational performance:

Hypothesis 2: Line- and supervisory-management engagement in conflict management willaffect key organisational outcomes of concern to employers: the employment relationsclimate, voluntary staff turnover, absence rates, productivity and the capacity to achieveorganisational change.

LINE MANAGERS AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) PRACTICES

An important theme in the literature suggests that in addition to giving line managers theresponsibility to manage workplace conflict, other complementary procedures should bedeveloped so that alternative problem-solving pathways are open to employees (Zack, 1997).The pivotal idea here involves the creation of ‘conflict-management systems’, in which line andsupervisory involvement in primary-level conflict management is seen as the core feature of arange of innovative practices for conflict resolution that may also involve HR or industrial

Paul Teague and William K. Roche



relations specialists and possibly other professionals such as ombudspersons and internal orexternal mediators or arbitrators (Lipsky et al., 2003). An interesting argument in the literatureis that organisations developing innovative conflict-management systems, built aroundso-called ‘ADR practices’, seek to move away from, or least amend, established practices foraddressing individual and group grievances and disputes in the workplace (Zack, 1997). Table 1outlines the kinds of ADR practices and approaches that may be used to address individual andgroup-based workplace conflict. Line managers and supervisors are usually seen in thisliterature as focal points in ‘conflict-management systems’ (Lipsky et al., 2003). In these systems,they are seen as being capable of both resolving conflict directly and acting as conduitschannelling disputes to formal mechanisms through which it may be addressed by specialistHR managers, or other managers, including managers with line responsibility. Reflecting theliterature on the pivotal role that line and supervisory managers are believed to play in theeffective operation of ADR practices, the following hypothesis can be proposed and examinedempirically:

Hypothesis 3: The effects of line and supervisory management engagement in conflictmanagement on key organisational outcomes will be positively moderated by formalconflict-management systems with multiple ADR practices.

INFLUENCES ON LINE-MANAGEMENT ENGAGEMENT IN CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

What clues might the literature provide as to key influences on the degree to which linemanagers and supervisors engage proactively in conflict management? First, it is claimed,though not well supported by explicit argument or evidence, that organisations that place ahigh priority on progressive HR practices are more likely to adopt innovative approaches toconflict management, including ADR practices (Bingham and Chachere, 1999: 100). We suggestthat the objectives of progressive or commitment-oriented HRM to foster consensus andcommitment in the workplace are best supported by line-management engagement in conflictresolution, and further that HRM also places a premium on the devolution of HR managementactivities generally to line managers, and that this posture should extend to the managementof conflict in the workplace. (Gratton et al., 1999).

Overlapping with this view is the argument that innovative approaches to managing conflicthave been influenced by the advent of high-performance work organisation, as being unable tosettle work grievances and employees fairly and efficiently may be costly in terms of damagingemployee morale (Kaminski, 1999). Lipsky and Avgar’s (2004) emphasis on innovations inconflict management as a response to the rebuilding of competitiveness suggests that theseinnovations may be more likely where firms seek to compete mainly on the basis of quality orinnovation rather than on the basis of cost: these competitive attributes again seeming toprioritise organisational attributes particularly vulnerable to conflict: a capacity for ongoingchange in products or processes, as well as co-operation and consensus. Yet a further view isthat organisations operating in markets where there is a premium on recruiting highly skilledand talented employment will be obliged to keep abreast of emerging best HR practices,including practices to resolve workplace conflict and to promote the reputation of being an‘employer of choice’ (Horibe, 1999). Reflecting these strands of the literature, the followinghypothesis is proposed for empirical examination:

Hypothesis 4: Levels of line-management engagement in conflict management will beassociated with high-commitment HRM, quality and/or innovation-based competitivepostures and with a high proportion of employees engaged in skill or knowledge-intensivework.




TAB

LE

1A

lter

nati

vedi

sput

ere

solu

tion

wor

kpla

ceco

nflic

tre

solu

tion

mec

hani

sms

Mec

han

ism

sfo

rin

div

idu

al-c

onfl

ict

reso

luti

onM

ech

anis

ms

for

grou

p-c

onfl

ict

reso

luti

on

Ope

n-d

oor

polic

yA

proc

edur

eth

aten

cour

ages

anem

ploy

eeto

dis

cuss

apr

oble

mw

ith

thei

rsu

perv

isor

orm

anag

erin

confi

den

cean

dw

itho

utfe

arof

reta

liati

on.

Bra

inst

orm

ing

Apr

oces

sin

volv

ing

grou

psto

empl

oyee

san

dm

anag

emen

td

esig

ned

tod

evel

opcr

eati

veso

luti

ons

toid

enti

fied

prob

lem

sE

mpl

oyee

hotl

ines

Apr

oced

ure

that

offe

rsan

empl

oyee

,w

how

ishe

sto

rem

ain

anon

ymou

s,th

efa

cilit

yof

ring

ing

anad

viso

rto

find

out

the

avai

labl

eop

tion

sto

solv

ing

apr

oble

m.

Inte

rest

-bas

edba

rgai

ning

Ase

tof

tech

niqu

esan

dpr

oces

ses

that

lead

sto

sett

lem

ents

that

inco

rpor

ate

the

inte

rest

sof

all

part

ies.

The

emph

asis

ison

wor

king

out

diff

eren

ces

thro

ugh

dia

logu

ean

dm

utua

lad

just

men

t.C

olla

bora

tion

and

join

tac

tion

are

the

byw

ord

sof

inte

rest

-bas

edne

goti

atio

ns.

Om

bud

sman

Ad

esig

nate

d‘n

eutr

al’

thir

dpa

rty

insi

de

anor

gani

sati

onas

sign

edth

ero

leof

assi

stin

gth

ere

solu

tion

ofa

grie

vanc

eor

confl

ict

situ

atio

n.T

heac

tivi

ties

ofan

ombu

dsm

anin

clud

efa

ct-fi

ndin

g,pr

ovid

ing

coun

selli

ngan

dco

ncili

atio

nbe

twee

nd

ispu

ting

part

ies.

Hig

h-gr

ade

pers

uasi

onsk

ills

are

the

key

asse

tof

ago

odom

bud

sman

.

Com

mun

icat

ion

and

cons

ulta

tive

proc

edur

es

Proc

edur

esth

atpr

ovid

eem

ploy

ees

anop

port

unit

yto

dis

cuss

mat

ters

ofsi

gnifi

canc

ean

dpr

opos

edpl

ans

for

the

futu

red

irec

tion

sof

the

orga

nisa

tion

.

Med

iati

onA

proc

ess

und

erth

est

ewar

dsh

ipof

ath

ird

part

yd

esig

ned

tohe

lpth

ose

invo

lved

ina

dis

pute

reac

ha

mut

ually

acce

ptab

lese

ttle

men

t.T

heth

ird

part

yha

sno

dir

ect

auth

orit

yin

the

proc

ess

and

islim

ited

topr

opos

ing

orsu

gges

ting

opti

ons

that

may

open

apa

thw

ayto

am

utua

llyag

reea

ble

reso

luti

on.

Ass

iste

dne

goti

atio

nsT

heus

eof

vari

ous

stra

tegi

essu

chas

cons

ensu

s-bu

ildin

g,jo

int

fact

-find

ing

and

med

iati

onto

assi

stin

reac

hing

sett

lem

ent,

orto

prev

ent

dea

dlo

ckin

dis

cuss

ions

and

nego

tiat

ions

wit

hin

the

com

pany

.Pe

er-r

evie

wpa

nels

Apa

nel

com

pose

dof

appr

opri

ate

empl

oyee

sor

empl

oyee

san

dm

anag

ers

that

liste

nsto

the

com

peti

ngar

gum

ents

ina

dis

pute

,re

flec

tsup

onth

eav

aila

ble

evid

ence

and

prop

oses

are

solu

tion

.W

heth

eror

not

the

dec

isio

nof

the

pane

lis

bind

ing

vari

esac

ross

orga

nisa

tion

s.

Use

ofex

tern

alex

pert

sE

xter

nal

expe

rts

help

solv

ein

tern

alpr

oble

ms

byun

lock

ing

entr

ench

edpo

siti

ons

ord

evel

opin

gcr

eati

veso

luti

ons.

The

iref

fect

iven

ess

isno

rmal

lyco

ndit

iona

lon

them

poss

essi

ngin

tegr

ity,

impa

rtia

lity

and

abili

ty.

Man

agem

ent

revi

ewbo

ard

s

Som

etim

esca

lled

dis

pute

reso

luti

onbo

ard

s,th

ese

pane

lsar

eso

lely

com

pose

dof

man

ager

san

dha

vem

ore

orle

ssth

esa

me

rem

itas

peer

revi

ews.

Aga

inth

ed

ecis

ion

ofth

epa

nel

may

orm

ayno

tbe

fina

l.A

rbit

rati

onA

neut

ral

thir

dpa

rty

isem

pow

ered

toad

jud

icat

ein

ad

ispu

tean

dse

tou

ta

reso

luti

onto

the

confl

ict.

Thi

sm

ayor

may

not

bebi

ndin

gd

epen

din

gup

onth

epr

evai

ling

labo

urle

gisl

atio

nan

dth

ed

esig

nof

the

arbi

trat

ion

proc

ess.

Ope

n-d

oor

polic

yA

proc

edur

eth

aten

cour

ages

anem

ploy

eeto

dis

cuss

apr

oble

mw

ith

thei

rsu

perv

isor

orm

anag

erin

confi

den

cean

dw

itho

utfe

arof

reta

liati

on.




The literature also identifies a series of environmental developments that are viewed ascritical influences on innovations in conflict management. Rowe (1997) asserts thatorganisations need to develop systematic conflict-management strategies to accommodateemployees who in the main are likely to be more educated and assertive and less willing todefer to managerial decision-making. An additional calculation is that the significant increasein employment legislation requires organisations to address conflict effectively so to avoid anunwelcome and potentially damaging involvement in some form of judicial process.Considering this set of factors as a whole, it is proposed that organisations that adopt aproactive posture towards the potential for conflict in their environments will be more likelyto engage line managers and supervisors in conflict management:

Hypothesis 5: Line and supervisory engagement will be positively associated with aproactive approach to conflict management.

The advent of innovative approaches to conflict management is sometimes seen as part ofa strategy of union avoidance through ‘union substitution’: removing incentives to unionisationamong the workforce (Lipsky and Avgar, 2004). This argument has been repeated in Irishresearch (Flood and Toner, 1996 and Toner, 1987). It seems unlikely that organisations seekingsimply to ‘suppress unions’ or otherwise opportunistically to avoid or contain unions will bewilling proactively to engage line managers and supervisors in conflict resolution. This promptsthe final hypothesis to be examined:

Hypothesis 6: Line and supervisory engagement in conflict management will be negativelyassociated with a concern to contain or suppress unions.

Before examining empirically the series of hypotheses derived from the literatures on thenature, outcomes and influences on line-management involvement in conflict management, wefirst describe the research strategy and methods adopted in the study.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The data used in the analysis were obtained from a survey of enterprises in the private sectorand state-owned commercial enterprises employing 50 or more employees in the Republic ofIreland in 2008. Focus groups consisting of experienced HR practitioners were used to helpdesign and validate the questionnaire. In addition, the survey questionnaire was piloted on asample of firms, and follow-up interviews were conducted with seven responding firms. Thequestionnaire was further amended on the basis of the feedback obtained. The finalquestionnaire contained 24 questions covering the features of conflict-management practices inuse, related HR and industrial relations practices, and other features of firms. The targetrespondent was the person most familiar with the handling of conflict in the workplace. Thequestionnaire was distributed by post, and several reminders and follow-ups were issued bythe fieldwork team. A definition of workplace conflict was included at the head of thequestionnaire.

The sampling strategy adopted a disproportionate design by firm size so as to ensure thatan adequate number of firms in the largest size category were included in the sample. Surveydata were weighted to correct for the oversampling of large firms and to adjust for differencesin response rates across firms in different size ranges and sectors. Descriptive research resultsreported later are based on weighted data estimates. The overall survey response rate obtainedwas 23 per cent (20 per cent in the case of firms in the 50–249 employees category and 30 percent in the case of firms in the 250+ employees category). This is satisfactory and well in line




with international experience. The resulting sample comprises 360 enterprises. The standardtime-trend extrapolation test provided no evidence that non-response bias was a significantproblem affecting the data.1 As a single-survey respondent provided data on all surveyvariables, considerable care was taken in devising and wording items and variables to reducemeasurement error, including common-method variance. A series of tests indicated thatcommon-method bias, resulting from a single respondent for each firm, was not a significantproblem affecting the results.2

RESULTS

The pattern of engagement with conflict management

An examination of Hypothesis 1 involves investigating the extent and nature of the processwhereby line managers are both assigned and discharge workplace conflict-managementresponsibilities. This is done by presenting the results of a series of questions examining thenature of line managers’ and supervisors’ involvement in the resolution of workplace conflict, asperceived by managers best placed to assess conflict management. Table 2 presents the relevantdata. In general, the results suggest that in most companies, line managers are seen as routinelyengaging in the resolution of conflict in the workplace. The table also reveals that line managersin most firms are required to conduct regular face-to-face meetings with employees to gauge areasof concern to them and to resolve problems: nearly 23 per cent of respondents indicate theirstrong agreement, and 52 per cent indicate their agreement with the statements presented in thetable, with respect to line-management activity in this area. These results suggest that the majorityof firms expect their line managers to play an important sense-making role in terms of continuallygauging the mood of employees and solving any identified problems. In addition, the tableindicates that 76 per cent of respondents either strongly agree or agree (21 per and 55 per cent,respectively), with the statement that their organisation formally enables line managers to resolveemployees’ problems quickly and informally, wherever possible.

Thus, it is evident that the majority of firms are seen by respondents as assigning linemanagers a role in preventing and solving workplace conflict. This finding immediately begsthe question as to whether adequate support and incentive arrangements are in place to helpline managers perform this role. The table reports that just under half of survey respondentsagree that line managers and supervisors were formally trained to handle workplace conflict– notwithstanding the substantial majorities indicating that line managers and supervisors wererequired both to handle and to resolve problems, as revealed by the results for the first twoitems examined. In addition, just over half of respondents agreed that line managers’ andsupervisors’ competence in employee relations was specifically assessed when theirperformance was being appraised. These results indicate that managers best placed to assessline managers’ activities with respect to conflict management regard line managers andsupervisors as being commonly active on workplace conflict matters, but at the same time asvery often operating without the kinds of formal organisational and management supportsidentified in the literature as key attributes of effective line and supervisory engagement in thearea: training and formal accountability for performance assessment.

Although it would defy what is generally considered as best practice, this situation mightnot necessarily be a problem if line managers were considered to perform their conflict-management duties effectively even in the absence of support structures. The survey sought toascertain views on this point. Table 2 indicates that just under half of respondents agreed withthe statement that line managers and supervisors lacked the confidence to resolve workplaceconflict and relied instead on HR managers or other senior managers for this purpose. Only 7




TAB

LE

2Li

nem

anag

ers,

supe

rvis

ors

and

confl

ict

reso

luti

on

%Fi

rms

Str

ongl

yag

ree

Agr

eeH

ard

tosa

yD

isag

ree

Str

ongl

yd

isag

ree

Mea

n*

SD

*

Lin

em

anag

ers

and

supe

rvis

ors

are

form

ally

trai

ned

toha

ndle

wor

kpla

ceco

nflic

t.11

.338

.518

.528

.23.

23.

31.

1

Lin

em

anag

ers

and

supe

rvis

ors

are

requ

ired

toco

nduc

tre

gula

rfa

ce-t

o-fa

cem

eeti

ngs

wit

hem

ploy

ees

toga

uge

area

sof

conc

ern

toth

eman

dre

solv

epr

oble

ms.

22.7

52.2

9.9

13.7

1.6

3.8

1.0

Lin

em

anag

ers’

and

supe

rvis

ors’

com

pete

nce

inem

ploy

eere

lati

ons

issp

ecifi

cally

asse

ssed

whe

nth

eir

own

perf

orm

ance

isbe

ing

appr

aise

d.

11.5

40.5

21.6

22.0

4.3

3.3

1.1

Lin

em

anag

ers

and

supe

rvis

ors

are

spec

ifica

llyan

dfo

rmal

lyen

able

dto

reso

lve

empl

oyee

prob

lem

squ

ickl

yan

din

form

ally

whe

neve

rpo

ssib

le.

21.0

54.6

11.4

10.8

2.2

3.8

1.0

Inpr

acti

ce,

line

man

ager

san

dsu

perv

isor

sla

ckth

eco

nfid

ence

tore

solv

ew

orkp

lace

confl

ict

and

rely

onH

Rm

anag

ers

orot

her

seni

orm

anag

ersa

15.3

33.1

19.9

25.0

6.7

2.8

1.2

*M

eans

and

stan

dar

dd

evia

tion

s(S

Ds)

are

base

don

1–5-

valu

esc

ales

,sc

ored

from

leas

tpo

siti

veas

sess

men

t(s

tron

gly

dis

agre

e)=

1to

mos

tpo

siti

veas

sess

men

t(s

tron

gly

agre

e)=

5.a

Thi

sit

emis

reve

rse

cod

edfo

rco

mpa

rabi

lity

wit

hot

her

item

s.




per cent of respondents strongly disagreed that line managers lacked the confidence to resolveworkplace conflict, and one in four respondents disagreed with the statement. This suggeststhat only about a third of the surveyed firms had a positive view about the role line managersplayed in the management of workplace conflict. Confidence in line managers and supervisorsbeing able to operate independently with respect to workplace conflict resolution achieved thelowest level of endorsement by the managers surveyed. Overall, the findings presented inTable 2 suggest that a sizable number of firms possess the following asymmetric characteristicswith respect to the activities of line managers and supervisors in managing: conflict-management responsibilities are delegated to line managers; inadequate support structures areput in place to help them perform this role; and the capacity of line managers to perform theirconflict-management duties with confidence and without a high level of reliance on otherexecutives seems to be in considerable doubt. Overall, the evidence presented appearsconsistent with Hypothesis 1.

Outcomes of engagement with conflict management

The next step in our analysis involves examining whether the proactive engagement in conflictmanagement by line managers and supervisors affected a series of organisational outcomes.Hypothesis 2 reflects the claims in a strand of the literature that effective line and supervisoryinvolvement in conflict management can positively influence a series of organisationaloutcomes. Given the provenance of our data, here, our focus is on outcomes relevant toemployers. To test Hypothesis 2, we develop a scale of ‘line management and supervisoryengagement’ by summing replies to each of the items profiled in Table 2. This set of items incombination provides a measure of the degree to which management systems, processes andactions are such that line managers and supervisors engage in conflict resolution confidentlyand independently in a context characterised by training supports, where it is expected thatthey will be engaged in an ongoing face-to-face problem solving, where formal scope forresolving problems has been delegated to line managers, and where they are held accountablefor their performance in this area of their work. The resulting scale alpha is 0.695, and factoranalysis revealed the scale to have a single underlying dimension.

To assess whether line engagement might be associated with positive organisationaloutcomes, respondents were asked to assess the performance of their company across a seriesof areas relative to other companies in their industry. The areas covered were the level of labourproductivity, the rate of voluntary labour turnover, the rate of absence through sickness or othercauses and the capacity to handle change. Responses were scored on a 1–5 scale, ranging from1 = ‘a lot below average’ to 5 = ‘a lot above average’. Respondents were also asked to respondto the following statement: ‘conflict resolution practices [in use] contribute positively to theclimate of employment relations in the company’. The four response categories provided variedfrom ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.

A scale summing the incidence of ADR practices established to address grievances involvingindividual employees as well as conflict involving groups of employees was also entered into theregressions in equations testing whether the effects of line and supervisory engagement onorganisational outcomes examined were positively moderated by the presence of ADR, asproposed in Hypothesis 2. The ADR practices covered in the survey focused on individualgrievance resolution comprised the prevalence of company ombudspersons, employeeadvocates, ‘hotline’ or email-based ‘speak-up’ services, open-door polices and the use ofexternal experts (other than the Irish public dispute resolution services) to address grievances,review panels of manager or peers. The ADR practices focused on the prevention or resolutionof group conflict comprised the use of external experts to prevent deadlock in discussions




within the company, external arbitrators (other than officers of the Irish public disputeresolution services), the conduct of ‘brainstorming’, problem solving and related techniques tosolve problems and to resolve disputes, the conduct of formal interest-based bargaining andintensive formal communications regarding impending change with groups of employees,undertaken with a view to avoiding disharmony or conflict.

A series of control variables need to be entered in assessing the effects of line andsupervisory management engagement on these outcomes. First, HR practices have been shownto affect the outcomes under examination (Boselie et al., 2005 and Combs et al., 2006). A scalemeasuring the degree to which firms have adopted practices commonly associated with thecommitment-oriented approach to HRM was constructed based on the incidence of a series of11 HR practices widely associated with commitment-oriented HRM in the literature (see Walland Wood, 2005). The practices included are formally designated team-working, regularemployee surveys, the assessment of employees’ values, attitudes or personality at the time ofhiring, formal performance management, individual performance-related pay, groupperformance-related pay, profit-sharing/share ownership, a policy of no compulsoryredundancies, common (single-status) terms and conditions of employment, a system of regularteam briefing that provides employees with business information and internal careerprogression as a formal objective for all employees. The alpha coefficient for the scale is 0.644,and the scale is again treated as unidimensional on the basis of the results of latent class factoranalysis.3 Controls were entered for company size, union recognition and sector (detailscontained at the foot of Table 3).

As all organisational outcome variables were measured using ordinal scales, ordinalregression (the cumulative proportional odds model, employing the logit link function) is theappropriate method to estimate the effects of line and supervisory engagement on the outcomesexamined (O’Connell, 2006). A series of ordinal regressions were estimated for each of theoutcomes examined. The results of these are reported in columns 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7 and 3.9 ofTable 3. The results suggest that line and supervisory engagement is positively associated withassessments of relative labour productivity, the capacity to handle change and with assessmentsof the effects of conflict resolution practices in general on the employment-relations climate, andnegatively associated with the rate of absences due to sickness and other causes. It has no effecton assessments of the rate of voluntary labour turnover relative to competitors. The resultsprovide substantial if not altogether consistent support for Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 3 proposes that the effects of line and supervisory engagement on outcomes willbe positively moderated by sets of ADR practices focused on averting and resolving disputesinvolving individuals or groups. This hypothesis derives from one of the key facets oforganisational alignment between line managers and supervisors and formal organisationalsystems for managing conflict discussed earlier. It is also consistent with the pivotal role thatthe literature expects line managers to play at the interface with formal conflict-managementmechanisms. To test hypothesis 3, all ordinal regressions were re-estimated but this timeincluding a cross-product interaction term between line and supervisory engagement and theADR practices scale. To minimise collinearity between the scales and their cross product,the scales used in the regress have been mean-centred (Jaccard et al., 1990). The results for theinteraction term are reported in columns 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8 and 3.10. The results are clear-cut –none of the interaction terms approach statistical significance – and indicate, contrary toexpectations, that the effect of line and supervisory engagement on outcomes is not altered inany significant manner in firms where line managers’ and supervisors engage in conflictmanagement in the context of formal systems comprising the extensive use of ADRmechanisms. Hypothesis 3 must be rejected.




TAB

LE

3Li

nean

dsu

perv

isor

yen

gage

men

tan

dor

gani

sati

onal

outc

omes

:or

dina

lre

gres

sion

esti

mat

es

Ind

epen

den

tva

riab

les

Dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Lab

our

pro

du

ctiv

ity

Vol

un

tary

lab

our

turn

over

Ab

sen

cera

teC

apac

ity

toh

and

lech

ange

ER

clim

ate

12

34

56

78

910

Lin

ean

dsu

perv

isor

yen

gage

men

t0.

074*

*0.

074*

*0.

028

0.02

9-0

.073

**-0

.073

**0.

133*

**0.

133*

**0.

137*

**0.

137*

**

AD

Rpr

acti

ces

-0.0

41-0

.034

0.09

80.

095

0.04

40.

041

-0.0

74-0

.064

0.00

40.

001

Lin

ean

dsu

perv

isor

yen

gage

men

t¥

AD

Rpr

acti

ces

0.01

40.

006

0.00

6-0

.017

0.00

6

Con

trol

vari

able

s

HR

M0.

087

0.09

10.

025

0.02

4-0

.087

-0.0

890.

148*

**0.

152*

**0.

149*

*0.

148*

*U

nion

reco

gnit

ion

-0.4

41-0

.462

*-0

.721

***

-0.7

09**

*0.

343

0.35

5-0

.765

***

-0.7

86**

*0.

440

0.43

1

Firm

size

1,00

0–10

,000

empl

oyee

s-0

.116

-0.1

330.

338

0.34

21.

113*

**1.

124*

**0.

408

0.38

00.

673

0.68

350

0–99

9em

ploy

ees

-0.2

23-0

.301

0.14

70.

182

0.51

30.

547

0.47

50.

382

-0.3

76-0

.343

100–

499

empl

oyee

s0.

095

0.08

9-0

.395

-0.3

960.

289

0.29

2-0

.114

-0.1

180.

403

0.40

3

Sec

tor

Dis

trib

utio

n-0

.002

0.00

10.

379

0.38

0-0

.549

*-0

.551

*-0

.010

-0.0

100.

376

0.37

8O

ther

serv

ices

0.08

90.

066

0.27

30.

288

0.16

40.

174

-0.1

65-0

.198

-0.1

15-0

.103

–2L

L63

2.6*

*63

1.9*

*73

2.0*

**73

1.9*

**69

5.7*

**69

5.6*

**73

1.23

***

730.

3***

309.

0***

471.

6***

N31

331

330

830

831

231

231

331

330

930

9

*p

<0.

10,

**p

<0.

05,

***

p<

0.01

.N

otes

:Ref

eren

ceca

tego

ries

for

cate

gori

calc

ontr

olva

riab

les

are

non-

reco

gnit

ion

ofun

ions

,firm

size

sof

50–9

9em

ploy

ees

and

the

man

ufac

turi

ngse

ctor

.Con

stru

ctio

nfi

rms

omit

ted

from

the

tabl

eas

the

smal

lnu

mbe

rspr

eclu

de

the

esti

mat

ion

ofa

relia

ble

regr

essi

onco

effic

ient

.AD

R,

alte

rnat

ive

dis

pute

reso

luti

on;

ER

,em

ploy

men

tre

lati

ons.




Examining influences on engagement

The final step in our analysis involves examining Hypotheses 4–6, which concern a series ofpossible influences on variations in the degree of line management and supervisoryengagement in conflict management and resolution. The prevalence of commitment-orientedHRM practices is measured by the HRM index, outlined above. The approach used to portraythe competitive postures of firms follows the broad method adopted by Osterman (1994), whichinvolved developing a scale measuring respondents’ assessments of the degree to which theirfirms prioritised competing on the basis of quality or innovation relative to cost.4 The possibleeffect of skill or knowledge-intensive work is tested by a variable estimating the proportion ofa firm’s workforce engaged in high-skill or knowledge-intensive work tasks and activities.

In addition to such potential influences, and as discussed earlier, a series of other internaland external influences are associated in the literature either with line managers’ andsupervisors’ engagement in conflict resolution, with innovations in conflict-managementpractices more generally, or with both aspects of conflict management. A series of eight surveyquestions sought to portray respondents’ views as to the impact of different types of influenceson the approach that firms had adopted to conflict resolution. The questions and associatedvariables were are follows: ‘responding to the expanding body of legislation providingemployees with individual employment rights’; ‘adapting work and employment arrangementsto changes needed in response to competitive pressures’; ‘preventing unions extending theirinfluence into, or within, the company’; ‘devoting a minimum outlay of time and resources tothe handling of workplace conflict’; ‘developing a less adversarial employment relationsclimate’; ‘expediting conflict management and/or resolving conflict in-house’; ‘emulating bestpractice in conflict management in leading companies’; and ‘responding to growingassertiveness by employees aware of their employment rights’. All were measured on aLikert-type scale, ranging from values of 1 (not important) to 4 (extremely important).

As it seemed likely that these variables would act as indicators for a smaller set ofunderlying postures or approaches influenced by different constellations of environmentalpressures, exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the set of eight variables. Thisidentified two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 (for the details of the factor analysis, seeAppendix Table A1). The first of these can be described as ‘proactive conflict management’.Loading on this factor are a concern to develop a less adversarial employment-relations climate,a concern to expedite conflict management and/or resolve conflict in-house, emulating bestpractice in leading companies and responding to growing assertiveness by employees aware oftheir employment rights. A second factor measures a posture that we label ‘union avoidance/containment’. Loading on this factor are preventing unions from extending their influence into,or within, the company and from devoting a minimum outlay of time and resources to thehandling of workplace conflict. A relatively straightforward concern to contain unions, but withlittle investment of time or resources in the handling of conflict management per se, appears tobe the underlying disposition here – a disposition resembling that sometimes referred to as‘union suppression’.

It appears likely that these influences on the degree to which line and supervisoryengagement in conflict management is present in firms may follow different paths: all or somebeing directly associated with line and supervisory engagement and others operating indirectlythrough their effects on other influences. Thus, we might expect all variables to influence lineand supervisory engagement directly. However, some variables, specifically the degree to whichfirms compete on the basis of quality and innovation and the incidence of skill or knowledgework, might also be expected to influence line and supervisory engagement indirectly by




affecting the degree to which firms adopt HR practices. Consistent with our theoreticalreasoning discussed earlier, we also expect that HRM may also be indirectly associated withline engagement by contributing to a proactive approach to line and supervisory engagement.These direct and indirect paths are presented diagrammatically in Figure 1.

A path model is the appropriate estimating method to test for such direct and indirect effects.Path coefficients were estimated through a structural equation model (SEM), with SEMvariables in the path analysis treated for this purpose as manifest variables. The SEM pathcoefficients are presented in Figure 1. They indicate that HRM (p < 0.01) and a proactiveapproach to conflict resolution (p < 0.05) influence line and supervisory management directly.HRM also influences line and supervisory engagement through its association with a proactiveapproach to conflict resolution. A quality and/or innovation focused competitive posture andskill or knowledge work influence line and supervisory engagement indirectly through theirassociation with HRM. Hypothesis 4 is confirmed but with indirect effects predominating: ofthe influences addressed, only HRM is found to have a direct effect on line and supervisoryengagement. Hypothesis 5 is also confirmed: line and supervisory engagement is found to bepositively associated with a proactive approach to conflict. Hypothesis 6 is disconfirmed. Unioncontainment is found to have no association with line and supervisory engagement rather thanthe negative effect expected.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The motivation behind this study is to improve understanding of the role played by linemanagers in organisations, particularly in relation to how they help solve workplace conflict.We believe this to be the most detailed study of the area in Ireland and, to the best of ourknowledge, remains one of the most detailed and recent studies of the field. Nevertheless,

FIGURE 1 Path model of influences on line and supervisory engagement

Notes: Path coefficients are standardised. Path coefficients and fit statistics are for trimmed path model shown; path coefficientsfor variables in model shown are similar for model containing control variables for sector, union recognition and company size. Covariances indicated by double headed arrows are significant at the 0.01 level (one-tailed): innovation and quality-basedcompetitive strategy and % of skilled or knowledge workers (7.15); innovation and quality-based competitive strategy and unioncontainment (–0.24); % of skilled or knowledge workers and union containment (–4.18). *** p < 0.01 (one-tailed). ** p < 0.05.

Line and SupervisoryEngagement

Human ResourceManagement

Proactive Approach toConflict Resolution

Innovation/QualityFocused Competitive

% Skilled orKnowledge Workers

UnionContainment

‐018

‐.024

‐.028

.256***

.167***

.095**

.291**.226***

e1

e3

e2

R2 = 0.112

R2 = 0.051

R2 = 0.101

χ =1.537, df. 4; p= .820




several limitations of our research should be acknowledged. The data collected pertain to othermanagers’ and mostly HR managers’ assessments of the role that line managers play in conflictresolution. Further research in the area might productively focus on the views and assessmentsof line managers themselves. The research was cross-sectional in nature, prompting the usualcaveat about the difficulty of determining cause and effect rather than association. Third, theresearch focused on a single respondent for each firm surveyed.

A number of important findings emerge from our study. First, line managers were found tobe formally involved in the routine management and resolution of workplace conflict in manyorganisations but commonly without formal training or recurrent assessment of theircompetence in this area. Line managers were seen by many senior managers as lacking inconfidence when handling workplace conflict. These findings add to the relatively small bodyof empirical literature that reveals a picture of line managers significantly at variance with thatportrayed in the more prescriptive HR literature, where the delegation of HR to the line occursin the context of well-aligned roles and responsibilities, reinforced by organisational supportsystems and incentives. For many line managers, grappling with conflict in the workplace, littlesupport or reinforcement appears to be forthcoming from the organisations in which they work.

Second, the study found empirical support for the argument that emerges frequently in theliterature that line and supervisory engagement in conflict management is associated with arange of positive organisational outcomes, which are particularly relevant to employers: relativelabour productivity, relative absence rates and the capacity to handle change compared withother firms in the same industry (Lipsky and Avgar, 2004). In addition, the assessed effects ofconflict resolution practices as a whole on the climate of employment relations were also foundto be higher in organisations with higher levels of line and supervisory engagement in conflictmanagement. But the study did not find that the role of line managers in resolving workplaceconflict would be enhanced if organisations also adopt multiple ADR practices. This thirdfinding suggests that the strong argument made in the literature that line and supervisoryengagement needs to be aligned with an integrated and modernised ADR-based conflict-management system may be overplayed (Bendersky, 2007).

A fourth finding of the study is that line and supervisory managers’ engagement, definedin terms of routine, confident and independent involvement in conflict management, supportedby training, monitored and incentivised by recurrent performance assessment, is mostdeveloped in firms that have adopted commitment-oriented HR practices. It is in firmsadopting such a HR model that we find line managers and supervisors adopting the mostdeveloped and well-aligned roles in the area of conflict management. This finding is consistentwith a large swathe of HR literature on the topic (Wright et al., 2001). In addition, firmsadopting a proactive approach to conflict management are also found to influence positivelyline and supervisory engagement directly. This reflects concern with a series of issues, inparticular, the expanding body of legislation extending individual employment rights,employees’ growing assertiveness in the context of these rights and a more general concern toemulate best practice, as represented by the practices in operation in leading companies. Firmsthat take cognisance of these and related developments are more likely to assign line managersand supervisors a developed and well-supported role in conflict management. The competitivepostures of organisations that prioritise innovation and quality over cost and the proportion ofemployees engaged in skill- or knowledge-intensive work were found to only influence lineand supervisory engagement indirectly by encouraging organisations to develop high-commitment HR models. However, no evidence was found for the relatively popular idea inthe US literature that line and supervisory engagement is associated with a concern with unionavoidance or containment.




Overall, the most important finding of our study is that developed, confident, independentand well-supported line and supervisory involvement in conflict management is a directfunction mainly of the adoption of commitment-oriented HRM and indirectly of the influencesthat prompt firms to invest in this model. Organisations without commitment-oriented HRMpolicies are likely to possess inadequate support structures to assist line managers in carryingout conflict-management activities. It is hardly surprising to find that senior managers in theseorganisations have not got full confidence in line managers carrying out these functions. Interms of the wider debate about the role of line managers in organisations, the message of thisarticle suggests that we should be neither too phlegmatic nor too downbeat: line managers canbe either effective or ineffective. Putting in place appropriate organisational support structuresis the most likely way to ensure that line managers perform a positive role.

Notes

1. Details of the test may be obtained from the corresponding author.2. Following Podsakoff et al. (2003), Harman’s single-factor test, confirmatory factor analysis,partial correlation analysis and regressions involving a common factor latent variable as acontrol variable failed to indicate the presence of significant common-method variance. Thedetailed statistical results are available from the corresponding author.3. Latent class factor models applied to the 11 items to determine whether distinctunderlying dimensions of HRM were identifiable, failed to attain statistical fit, and itseemed prudent therefore to regard the scale as unidimensional.4. Respondents were asked to assign points to represent the weighting their firms wereseen to attribute to competing on the basis of innovation and of quality relative to cost,where 100 points were pre-assigned by us to competing on the basis of cost. Sorespondents who viewed competing on the basis of innovation to be twice as important fortheir organisations as cost would assign 200 points to this aspect of competition;respondents in firms who regarded competing on quality as about half as important as costwould assign 50 points to this aspect of competition and so on. A scale measuring thedegree to which firms, as seen by respondents, pursued competitive postures emphasisinginnovation and quality was then constructed by deriving the first principal componentscores of the points assigned to competing on the basis of innovation and quality relative tocost.

REFERENCES

Anderson, V., Rayner, C. and Schyns, B. (2009). Coaching at the Sharp End: The Role of Line Managersin Coaching at Work, London: CIPD.

Bendersky, C. (2007). ‘Complementarities in organizational dispute resolution systems: how systemcharacteristics affect individuals’ conflict experiences’. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 60: 2,204–224.

Bingham, L. and Chachere, D. (1999). ‘Dispute resolution in employment: the need for research’, inA.E. Eaton and J.H. Keefe (eds), Employment Dispute Resolution and Worker Rights in the ChangingWorkplace, Champaign, IL: Industrial Relations Research.

Boselie, P., Dietz, G. and Boon, C. (2005). ‘Commonalities and contradictions in HRM andperformance research’. Human Resource Management Journal, 15: 3, 67–94.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) (2007). Managing Conflict at Work, London:CIPD.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) (2008a). Leadership and the Management ofWorkplace Conflict, London: CIPD.




Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) (2008b). Managing Conflict at Work: A Guidefor Line Managers, London: CIPD.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) (2008c). Fight, Flight Or Face It? CelebratingEffective Conflict Management at Work, London: CIPD.

Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A. and Ketchen, D. (2006). ‘How much do high-performance work practicesmatter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organisational performance’. Personnel Psychology, 59:3, 501–528.

Costantino, C. and Merchant, C. (1996). Designing Conflict Management Systems: A Guide to CreatingProductive and Healthy Organisations, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Flood, P. and Toner, B. (1996). ‘Managing without unions: a pyrrhic victory?’ in P. Flood, M.J. Gannonand J. Paauwe (eds), Managing Without Traditional Methods, London: Addison-Wesley.

Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P. and Truss, C. (eds) (1999). Strategic Human ResourceManagement, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hales, C. (2005). ‘Rooted in supervision, branching into management: continuity and change in therole of first-line manager’. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 3, 471–506.

Harris, L. (2001). ‘Rewarding employee performance: line managers’ values, beliefs and perspectives’.International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12: 7, 1182–1192.

Horibe, K. (1999). Managing Knowledge Workers: New Skills and New Attitudes to Unlock the IntellectualCapital in Your Organisation, Oxford: Blackwell.

Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R. and Wan, C.K. (1990). Interaction Effects in Multiple Regressions, Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Kaminski, M. (1999). ‘New forms of work organisation and their impact on organisational grievanceprocedures’, in A. Eaton and J.H. Keefe (eds), Employment Dispute Resolution and Worker Rights inthe Changing Workplace, Champaign, IL: Industrial Relations Research.

Lipsky, D.B. and Avgar, A.C. (2004). ‘Research on employment dispute resolution: toward a newparadigm’. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22: 1–2, 175–189.

Lipsky, D.B., Seeber, R.L. and Fincher, R.D. (2003). Emerging Systems for Managing Workplace Conflict:Lessons from American Corporations for Managers and Dispute Resolution Professionals, San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

McGovern, P., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V. and Truss, C. (1997). ‘Human resource management onthe line?’ Human Resource Management Journal, 7: 4, 12–29.

Nehles, A.C., Riemsdijk, M., Kok, I. and Looise, J.K. (2006). ‘Implementing human resourcemanagement successfully: a front-line management challenge’. Management Revue, 17: 3, 256–273.

O’Connell, A. (2006). Logistic Regression Models for Ordinal Response Variables, London: Sage.Osterman, P. (1994). ‘How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it?’ Industrial and

Labor Relations Review, 47: 1, 173–188.Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Podsakoff, N. and Lee, J.Y. (2003). ‘Common method bias in behavioural

research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies’. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88: 5, 879–903.

Purcell, J. and Hutchinson, S. (2007). ‘Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance causalchain: theory, analysis and evidence’. Human Resource Management Journal, 17: 1, 3–20.

Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Swart, J., Rayton, B. and Hutchinson, S. (2009). People Management andPerformance, London: Routledge.

Renwick, D. (2003). ‘Line manager involvement in HRM: an inside view’. Employee Relations, 25: 3,262–280.

Rowe, M.P. (1997). ‘Dispute resolution in the non-union environment: an evolution towardsintegrated systems for conflict management?’ in S.E. Gleason (ed.), Workplace Dispute Resolution:Directions for the Twenty-First Century, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Toner, B. (1987). Union or Non-Union? Contemporary Employee Relations Strategies in the Republic ofIreland, unpublished PhD Thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science.

Ury, W., Brett, J. and Goldberg, S. (1989). Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Costof Conflict, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.




Wall, T. and Wood, S. (2005). ‘The romance of HRM and business performance and the case for bigscience’. Human Relations, 58: 4, 29–62.

Whittaker, S. and Marchington, M. (2003). ‘Employee relations; delegating HR responsibility to theline: threat, opportunity or partnership?’ Employee Relations, 25: 3, 245–261.

Wright, P.M., McMahan, G.C., Snell, S.A. and Gerhart, B. (2001). ‘Comparing line and HR executives’perceptions of human resource effectiveness: service, roles and contributions’. Human ResourceManagement, 40: 2, 111–123.

Zack, A.M. (1997). ‘Can alternative dispute resolution help resolve employment disputes?’International Labour Review, 136: 1, 95–108.

APPENDIX

TABLE A1 Factor analysis of influences on approach adopted by firms to conflict resolution

Components

Proactive conflictmanagement

Unioncontainment

1. 2.

Eigenvalues 2.425 1.202% of variance explained 30.307 15.021Responding to the expanding body of legislation providing

employees with individual employment rights0.58 0.12

Adapting work and employment arrangements to changesneeded in response to competitive pressures

0.46 0.35

Preventing unions extending their influence into, or within, thecompany

0.25 0.58

Devoting a minimum outlay of time and resources to thehandling of workplace conflict

0.34 0.58

Developing a less adversarial employment relations climate 0.61 -0.24Expediting conflict resolution and/or resolving conflict in-house 0.65 -0.40Emulating best practice in conflict resolution in leading

companies0.66 -0.38

Responding to growing assertiveness by employees aware oftheir employment rights

0.69 0.14

Principal components analysis used to extract factors and factor solutions are unrotated.




Documents

Line managers and the management of workplace conflict: evidence from Ireland