Do disciplinary and grievance procedures help bridge the ‘Resolution Gap’?

In 2013, Richard Saundry coined the phrase ‘resolution gap’ when arguing the need for informal conflict resolution as an intervention to mitigate the rise in Employment Tribunals. Following Ury et al.’s (1998) argument that conflict is best resolved locally, informal resolution interventions such mediation or facilitated discussions should always be an organisation’s primary approach to conflict.

However, what happens when informal resolution fails? To me, there are two stages of Saundry’s ‘Resolution Gap’ – the informal resolution stage and the formal resolution through the disciplinary and grievance procedure. When informal resolution fails, individuals and organisations have recourse to utilise the disciplinary or grievance procedures.

Currently academics take a mixed view on how formal resolution impacts on the levels of workplace conflict: Williams (2020) argues that disciplinary and grievances help “contain and accommodate” (p321) workplace conflict, to the extent that managers rely on them as a default option when they are unable to resolve the issue informally (Saundry 2020). Nurse and Devonish (2007) argue that such procedures ‘institutionalises’ the conflict. Containment and institutionalising the conflict does not necessarily lead to the conflict being resolved. 

I agree with Saundry and Dix’s (2014) research that invoking such procedures is an escalation of conflict. Not that this should be perceived negatively. Sometimes an issue can only be resolved if it is escalated. However, mismanagement of the procedure has been known to lead to further escalation in the conflict (Bennett et al., 2020, Cappelli and Chuvin, 1991).   

Currently I do not feel that there has been sufficient attention to what needs to happen to ensure that conflict is appropriately managed during formal procedures. What we do know is that conflict escalates when employees feel dissatisfied in how their issue has been managed (Abbot, 2007). We also know that on occasion, parties become entrenched in their positions and as such find it difficult to reach an mutually agreeable resolution (Gibbons, 2007).

Certainly, the formality of disciplinary and grievances has an impact – not just on the employee. Ainsworth (2017:80) describes the process as “a kind of contest”, where individuals are “striving to prevail” which suggests an underlying sense of competition. The enactment of procedures has also been found to impact on relationships between HR professionals and operational managers (Fisher et al.’, 2017), arising from mis-managed expectations (Gennard and Judge, 2005).

Amanda Oates of Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust describes the situation quite nicely:“it is ironic that the very people processes that are designed to keep staff safe and legally protected are often the vehicle with which we do the most harm to our own people” (2022: 146). 

From a research perspective it suggests that further work is required to be able to say that formal procedures can offer effective conflict resolution. From a practitioner perspective, this is a real need. My team and I hear first hand accounts from individuals who are embroiled in conflict, talking about the impact that it has had on them professional and personally. There is a need to understand how organisations can manage this better - or does there a need for a fundamental policy shift? I don’t have the answer, but I do know that there is no silver bullet.

References

Abbot, B. (2007) ‘Workplace and employment characteristics of the Citizens Advice Bureau client’. Employee Relations. Vol 29 (3) pp. 262-79.

Ainsworth, J. (2017) ‘Procedural Justice and the Discursive Construction of Narratives at Trial’,  Languages Cultures Mediation. Vol 4.

Cappelli, P., Chauvin, K. (1991) ‘A test of an efficiency model of grievance activity’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 45, pp. 3–14.

Fisher, V., Kinsey, S., Saundry, R. (2017) ‘The myth of devolution? The role of HR practitioners in the management of workplace conflict’. Paper presented at the CIPD Applied Research Conference, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.

Gennard, J., Judge, G. (2005) “Employee Relations”, London, England: CIPD, 4th edition.

Gibbons, M. (2007) “A review of employment dispute resolution in Great Britain”. London: DTI.

Nurse, L. Devonish, D. (2007), ‘Grievance management and its links to workplace justice’. Employee Relations, Vol. 29(1), pp.89-109.

Saundry, R. (2013) Plugging the Resolution Gap? ESRC Seminar: Reframing Resolution. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.

Saundry, R. (2020) The Impact of Covid-19 on Employment Relations in the NHS. Available at: www.socialpartnershipforum.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/NHS-Covid-ER-Report.pdf

Saundry, R., Dix, G. (2014) ‘Conflict resolution in the UK’.  In Roche, W., Teague, P., Colvin, A. (Eds.), “The Oxford Handbook on Conflict Management”. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ury, W.L., Brett, J.M., Goldberg, S.B. (1988) “Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict”. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Williams, S. (2020) “Introducing employment relations: a critical approach”. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5^th edition.

New NHS England guidance: the expectations of line managers in relation to people management

New guidance has come out this week from NHS England on the expectations of line managers. You can find it here.

It’s quite a lengthy list of expectations, broken down into sub-themes (my team will tell you, I love a good sub-theme). On first review, it can feel quite overwhelming.

But on a second review, your average manager (like me) will be thinking that there’s nothing new on the list and they attempt every day to meet those previously unwritten expectations.

The introduction states that the framework will “explain the role of the manager in relation to people management”. But I don’t think it does. It is list of expectations, and “what managers need to know and understand”. It isn’t an explantion. A list is not sufficient in ensuring that managers truly understand what is expected of them.

Words have different meanings for different people. One of my favourite exercises is asking a group of staff what their understanding of “professionalism” is, which always results in a myriad of different responses. There will be some similarities from participants, enough to get a consensus. But it always surprises me how many different ways someone judges another person’s professionalism.

So, when the NHS England framework states “handle personal data and information in a professional and confidential manner”, what does this actually mean? It’s wrong to assume that we all know what it means. Test it out, ask your colleauges, and see what answers you get. And if you find disparities in interpretation, you know that a team discussion needs to be held to develop a shared understanding.

To emphasise this point further: when we undertake Cultural Reviews with teams, we always ask “how do you know that you’re doing a good job?” What we’re trying to find out is whether individuals recieve feedback on their work – both positive feedback and feedback that enable them to perform better. We want to know the source of that feedback. We want to know whether clear and tangible expectations are set, against which an individual can measure their own success.

After undertaking hundreds of Cultural Review meetings, our key finding across every team we have worked with, across every Trust we have worked with, across different healthcare settings, is that it is rare to find a manager who provides good feedback to their staff. Most participants talk about the value of patient feedback, or rely on self-validation. But nothing is more motivational than a manager recognising their employee for their work, and telling them.

In the NHS England’s line manager framework, it states that managers should “have regular one-to-ones to check in, provide feedback, and discuss their wellbeing”; and this is achieved through a manager’s contribution to “creating a culture of trust and encouragement”. The managers we’ve met through our Cultural Reviews believe that they are doing this, but the feedback from their team often suggests the opposite. Some managers are insightful in knowing that they are not doing it well enough.

At this point of the framework, there is a handy link to NHS England’s Culture and Leadership programme. Towards the end of the webpage is a directory of all the supporting documentation and developent programmes available which underpin the Framework. Whilst it’s positive to see this level of resource, it is, again, almost overwhelming. How does a manager navigate this plethora of information and determine what’s suitable for them?

Whilst this post might appear that I’m being critical of the Framework, I have not underestimated the amount of work that has been undertaken to produce it. Upon a closer read, you can see the level of thought that has gone into developing it (it’s tightly written yet comprehensive). I just don’t think that it’s enough to change the current management culture in the NHS. I’ve only touched on two small parts of the framework where I feel that there is a gap between reality and what is expected. This gap can only be bridged through significant investment in management training and targetted interventions at a local level.

Silence

The majority of us gain our first experience as an interviewer when we’re recruiting for a position. We may or may not have interviewng training beforehand. But one of the ‘tips’ that you’ll be given is to use silence. You ask a question, allow the interviewee to answer. Instead of ploughing on to the next question you pause. You allow the silence. And yes, nobody likes silence; but you’ll find that the interviewee will most likely will break that silence by providing additional information in relation to the answer they’ve just given. That silence allows the interviewee the space to further consider their thoughts, and the opportunity to share something that will help the interviewer in determing whether they are the right person for the role.

However, how often do we use this ‘tip’, of allowing silence, in our investigatory interviews? The situation is similar. As an interviewer, you’re wanting to maximise your interviewee’s potential answers. The more evidence an interviewee provides, the closer we can get, as investigators, to understand what has occured and what has led to the workplace conflict that we’re investigating. So why do we not consciously use it as part of our methodology?

There are lots of opportunities for silence in investigatory interviews. When you’re taking notes, you will often find yourself trying to catch up when an interviewee comes to the end of their response to your most recent question. You might be worried about stopping the flow of the interview (something that was a concern of Collins, 2004). However, instead of putting pressure on yourself to keep the flow of the interview, stop. Allow the silence whilst you catch up with your notes. Name it: tell the interviewee that you’re still capturing what they just shared. This will allow the interviewee time to think further about the topic you’ve been discussing and may yield further insights.

Bengtsson and Fynbo (2018) wrote an interesting article about the power of silience in qualitative interviews and how it impacts on power dynamics. Fynbo’s (2014) previous work on power dynamics described the interviewer as ‘powerful’ and the interviewee as ‘disempowerd’. But when you introduce silence, Bengtsson and Fynbo (2018) found that that power dyanmic circulates as opposed to being fixed – akin to Foucault’s (1972) insights on power dynamics between two individuals. In this way, the silence gives power to the interviewee: at this point they are controlling the interview by deciding whether or not they wish answer the previous question more fully. But more importantly, the silence is an important part of an interview in that it allows content to be created – or in the case of investigatory interviews, more evidence to be shared (Rapley, 2001). This additional content mitigates for any potential disruption in the flow of the interview (Bengtsson and Fynbo, 2018).

References:

Bengtsson, T.T. and Fynbo, L., (2018). Analysing the significance of silence in qualitative interviewing: Questioning and shifting power relations. Qualitative Research, 18(1), pp.19-35.

Collins, R. (2004) Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Foucault, M, (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Discourse on Language. New York:
Pantheon Books.

Fynbo, L. (2014). Immoral, deviant, or just normal: drunk drivers’ narratives of drinking and drunk
driving. Contemporary Drug Policy, 41(Summer), pp.233–260.

Rapley, T. J. (2001). The art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: some considerations on analysing
interviews. Qualitative Research 1(3), pp.303–323.

Why information transparency is important

I have always believed in the improtance of clear and transparent communication. As a practitioner, I have personally found that individuals are more receptive if they feel that you are trying to be honest (and respectful) by providing them with the information that you have. I’ve seen people become less anxious when issues are explained in detail, but in a way that they can understand.

Then I came across some research from Orchard, Carnide & Smith, 2019. They have undertaken an intersesting piece of research into how the perceptions of fairness were impacted during injury-at-work claims. The outcome was that they found that poor information was provided to staff about their claim, the staff were more likely to have a perception of unfairness. Unfortunately, this also led to their mental health being impacted.       

So to ensure that your staff feel that you are being fair, do consider how you communicate with them when dealing with tricky issues. It might not be easy talking about some matters, but it’s best to be transparent.

Not all ‘bad’ managers are ‘bad’ all the time

A little nugget I picked up at the weekend: in an interesting article about how managers who demonstrate pro-social activities (i.e. activities which benefit others, which in essence covers every manager working in the public sector) are more likely to be held to higher standards of behaviour by their colleagues than those who don’t (e.g. city bankers), the researchers* also concluded that ‘bad managers’ aren’t ‘bad’ 100% of the time. This may seem like common sense to those of us who specialised in investigations into poor management practices, but it’s good to know that there is academic reserach to confirm this.

*Johnson, Priesemuth, Bigelow (2020).

Senior Leadership Teams: : What it takes to make them great. (Book Review)

I was asked to review this book by the Health Service Journal and my review was published last month.

As a leader, have you ever considered whether you really need a leadership team? This question is often ignored or the leader assumes that they’ve answered it, until they realise that their leadership team has become dysfunctional. 

This book commences by asking this question, followed by five further questions about the purpose and membership of a top-team and how this has an impact on the organisation’s performance.   The answers to these questions can provide valuable insight into a team’s understanding of how well they are working together. 

The authors provide a template which, in their view, is the foundation of a successful team.  In order to establish a high-performing team, six necessary conditions are required:  three essential (real team, right players and compelling direction) and three enabling (solid structure, supportive environment, team coaching).  The authors suggest that all six conditions do not have to be in place when a team is formed, but evidence of the team’s potential to obtain them is a pre-requisite. 

The last section of the book offers four key competencies which the authors believe are essential for a top team to possess. The book also describes four different types of leadership teams (information, consultative, co-ordinating, or decision-making) and how they should be deployed in an organisation.  The authors provide numerous case studies, although the majority are American and only two relate to healthcare.

I would recommend this book to newly-appointed Chief Executives and their top teams.  Organisational Development professionals will find the book useful when developing staff engagement or communication strategies within an organisation. 

This book is realistic:  it recognises that the journey from a collection of senior managers to a high performing top-team can be hard and painful, but ultimately rewarding.  There is nothing new in this book, but it stops and makes you think.

Overall rating: 4.5 stars

 

Authors:  Wageman, Ruth, Nunes, Debra, A., Burruss, James, A., Hackman, J. Richard

Publisher:  Harvard Business School Press

 You can purchase this book from Amazon

Does Your Relationship With The TUs Represent Good Staff Engagement?

The local TU representative (staff side representative) carries the enormous responsibility of being an advocate of the local members of his department or professional group.  In an ideal scenario, your staff side rep should be able to reliably inform the Trust on what the local members think of proposals and service developments.   It is not uncommon to “test the temperature” around a new idea by running it past (informally) the local staff side rep first.

In organisations (and I mainly refer to NHS Trusts) where there is a sense of trust between management and staff side, this relationship can be dynamic, collaborative and very constructive.  Where there is little trust, the organisation can find itself with a dysfunctional and disruptive workforce.  I have been struck this week by how important staff side relationships are.

Let’s take Job Evaluation:  The NHS has a national, bespoke system called Agenda for Change.  Implemented in 2005, thousands of managers, HR staff and staff side reps were trained in this system.  It’s not a perfect system, but it has helped to reduce the potential of pay inequity and attempts to bring transparency to a creative art form.

Although there is national guidance, I find that with each Trust I work with there is local interpretation: this ranges from how each factor is scored to how the process is carried out.    For example:

• The Trusts where there is poor staff side relationship, the process is long and drawn-out. 
• In other Trusts, management have worked with staff side to streamline the process. 

In one Trust, the time it takes to evaluate a set of 10 posts is 8 times longer than another one!  This has an obvious impact on productivity and carries a significant cost to the organisation.

The key to driving efficiences lies with the local staff side.  There needs to be an element of trust between all parties with any radical changes to an established system. 

The Trust that has significantly stream-lined its process has high staff engagement.  The staff trust the process and their local representatives to ensure that the right outcome is reached.

On the other hand, the Trust who has a long, labourious process has poor staff engagement.  The local staff side are fighting to protect the status quo as they fear that the staff may be disadvantaged if any efficiences are built into the system.

Job evaluaton may seem a dry topic to reflect upon in relation to staff engagement, but the underlying outcome is money.  And money matters to staff.  If staff are engaged  they will allow their local staff side reps to work collaboratively with managers.  This can only result in a win-win for everybody.

I’ve written about Staff Engagement before, and my views haven’t changed.  It’s important to recognise that staff engagement permeates through-out all elements of the organisation, and it all starts with the Trade Unions.

Moving difficult staff isn’t the answer

This weekend, I had lunch with a good friend.  Duncan is the Head of a Learning & Development department for a business in the City, and his team sit within the HR Department.  We don’t normally talk shop, but Duncan’s currently managing a “difficult employee”, and is receiving absolutely no help from his HR colleagues.

I’ve come across such difficult individuals before: One member of staff that I had the luxury of managing, many moons ago, had the misfortune of loosing a close relative every six months.  In between she would also experienced a range of terrible personal tragedies.  And when she ran out of ideas, she put in a grievance.    I was lucky enough to have a solid line-manager who decided to look into her situation more carefully: the death certificates did not seem to exist and the counter-fraud team were unable to unearth any police incident numbers. Finally my boss “called her bluff”.   At that point, the employee gracefully handed in her notice.

Duncan described to his “difficult employee’s” antics to me, and she is demonstating similar behaviour.   Her negative behaviour is becoming destructive for both Duncan and the other members of his team.   But their HR department are not prepared to support Duncan in taking a tough line with this member of staff.  With a significant sickness absence record (not really a surprise), the “difficult employee” has little chance of being successful in finding another job.   However, light is at the end of the tunnel:  she has just applied for a transfer to another part of the organisation.  The Head of HR is endorsing the application and so it is likely that soon she will move from Duncan’s team, only to be a burden for another part of the organisation.

Duncan is incensed by what is happening:  with an HR team who are advising a “hands-off” management approach,  he feels paralysed by the situation.  He is also angry that the HR team aren’t demonstrating best practice by actively support him in managing this difficult member of staff.  For me, I feel that the HR team in this organisation is letting  our profession down.  And whilst City institutions continue to handsomely reward their Executives (which I have no issue with, but then I don’t always agree with the Daily News) they are also continuing to waste money and resources by not appropriately managing their staff.  Surely it is cheaper to dismiss this individual and then fight any claims via an Employment Tribunal than to retain them and their difficult behaviour in employment indefinitely?

I have been lucky in my career to have worked with strong and professional HR and Occupational Health practitioners who have supported me when I’ve been working on cases concerning difficult employees.  It’s our responsibility as HR practitioners to consider all the options, the risks and benefits of each, as well as the cost implications when we work with line-managers who are trying to manage “difficult employees”.  And let’s face it, moving staff is the easy solution.   The one thing that I truly believe is that in such situations moving the difficult employee isn’t the answer.  Whilst it might seem to solve today’s problem, it does not help anybody (the manager, the employee, the team or the organisation)  in the long-term.   So why do it?

What are you really asking?

An HR colleague (Ian) called me to discuss a new HR case that’s landed on his desk.  An employee and her boss are not getting along:  the senior manager wanted Ian to undertake some diagnostic work to understand the reasons for their conflict and to make suggestions that will lead to improvements in their relationship. 

Although Ian had initially called to ask my advice on what tools I would use as part of the diagnostic process, the conversation moved to the question of what was the senior manager really wanting Ian to achieve?   This is an important question at the start of any new HR case: the expectations of the senior manager need to be fully “fleshed out” prior to delving into the case and giving advice. 

An HR practitioner who’s about to become involved in an informal staff conflict, needs to consider the following two questions:

What is the senior manager really asking me to do?  Is it to:

a) understand the reason for the conflict in their relationship?

or

b) to find a way for the two members of staff work harmoniously and productively together?

 And what will happen once there has been some sort of diagnostic exercise or development intervention?

a) will any report or notes made whilst the case is live be completely confidential? (And will this be possible? The two members of staff will want to have access to the report and will be entitled to at least a redacted report under Data Protection legislation)

or

b) might the report / notes potentially be used as part of someone’s exit strategy?

 The outcome of these answers will drive the form in determining how this case will be managed.  A more in-depth conversation with the senior manager was needed before any work could commence.  Often the senior manager hasn’t thought through these questions themselves so this discussion will help clarify their thinking.

Luckily there are a whole range of tools that are available to support staff in mending their relationship and finding a way to work harmoniously together again:   In our conversation, Ian and I went on to discuss the benefits of MBTI (he’s a qualified practitioner) and I also referred him to an excellent mediator that I use.   But that conversation is for another day…and another blog post.