Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Page 1/27
Towards a Strategic Approach to Organizational Conflict Management
Ariel C. AvgarSchool of Labor and Employment RelationsUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
ACR Workplace Section TeleseminarMonday, August 31, 2015
Page 2/27
The Strategic Underpinnings of Conflict Managementin U.S. Corporations:
Evidence from a Survey of Fortune 1000 Companies
David B. Lipsky Cornell University
Ariel C. AvgarUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
J. Ryan LamarePenn State University
Page 3/27
Presentation Road Map
State of organizational conflict management: Evidence from Fortune 1000 firms
Traditional explanations for the rise of sophisticated conflict management practices and systems in organizations
The strategic underpinnings for the adoption of conflict management practices and systems
Summary and conclusions
Page 4/27
Motivation The dramatic growth in the use of ADR by many U.S.
employers, especially major corporations, over the past 40 years ADR: The use of arbitration, mediation, and other dispute
resolution techniques to resolve workplace conflict Employers began to use ADR as an alternative to litigation and
(sometimes) to collective bargaining
The recent emergence of so-called “integrated conflict management systems” in many U.S. organizations
The relative lack of empirical research on the drivers (especially from a strategic standpoint) of these organizational innovations
Page 5/27
* These options were only included in the 2011 study
The Proportion of Corporations that Used the Technique at Least Once in the Previous Three Years
Experience with Types of ADR among Fortune 1000 Companies, 1997 and 2011
Page 6/27
The Proportion of Corporations that Used Mediation at Least Once in this Type of Dispute in the Previous Three Years
The Use of Mediation by Type of Dispute, 1997 and 2011
Page 7/27
The Proportion of Corporations that Used Arbitration at Least Once in this Type of Dispute in the Previous Three Years
The Use of Arbitration by Type of Dispute, 1997 and 2011
Page 8/27
Proportion of Employees Percentage of CompaniesMore than 75 percent 19.0%
Between 51 and 75 percent 3.5%
Between 26 and 50 percent 3.5%
Between 1 and 25 percent 19.4%
Zero 43.3%
Don’t know 11.3%
“What Proportion of Your Employees are Covered by ADR?”
Resolving Employment Disputes
Page 9/27
Does Your Company Have an Office or “Function” Dedicated to Managing Your
Dispute Resolution Program?
Conflict Management System
Page 10/27
Existing Explanations for the Rise of New Conflict Management Practices
The new social contract in U.S. employment relationsThe so-called “litigation explosion”The decline of the labor movementGlobalization and increasing market competitionThe deregulation of industry The reorganization of work and the decline of hierarchyThe pace of technological change
Page 11/27
Principal Reasons Companies Use ADR, 2011
Page 12/27
Strategic Choice and the Study of Organizational Conflict Management
Most of the existing explanations view ADR and CMS as a reactive response to either external or internal pressures
Our study proposes a strategic lens through which to assess ADR and CMS adoption patterns
Firms, according to this argument, are adopting conflict management practices as a function of strategic choice and not as a mere reactive response to organizational and environmental pressures
In doing so, we build on the seminal industrial relations research on the strategic choices managers make in adopting and implementing organizational practices
Page 13/27
Strategic Choice and the Study of Organizational Conflict Management: Two
Elements Strategic Orientation—What are the anticipated
benefits delivered to the organization through the adoption of conflict management practices?
Commitment to Conflict Management Practice—Once practices are in place, what proportion of the firm’s employees are afforded access to them?
Page 14/27
Strategic Choice and the Study of Organizational Conflict Management
Three dominant strategic orientations Seeking gains in efficiency through the use of ADR
(efficiency) Avoiding litigation and reducing associated costs
(litigation avoidance) Retaining management control and improving internal
relationships (sustainable resolutions)Management commitment to ADR
Proportion of the workforce that is covered by ADR practices
Page 15/27
Proposed Endogenous ADR and CMS Antecedents
Conflict Management StrategyEfficiencyLitigation AvoidanceSustainable Resolutions
Commitment to ADR
Adoption of ADR and Conflict Management
Systems
Page 16/27
Framework for the Study
Cornell conducted the first comprehensive survey of ADR practices used by Fortune 1000 corporations in 1997
The 1997 survey documented the following results: The growing use of ADR, especially arbitration and mediation The corporate preference for interest-based (rather than rights-
based) methods of resolving disputes The emergence of conflict management systems
Our new survey of the Fortune 1000 was conducted in 2010-11 Designed in part to replicate the 1997 survey, and in part to capture
new ADR developments adopted over the past 15 years The new survey was cosponsored by Pepperdine, CPR, and Cornell
Page 17/27
Survey Design and Methodology
Our objective was to interview the general counsel (GC) of each corporation; if we could not interview the GC, we interviewed one of the GC’s top deputies
We succeeded in conducting interviews with top attorneys in 368 corporations; in the 1997 survey we conducted interviews in 606 corporations
In the current survey, 46 percent of the respondents were GCs and 54 percent were other attorneys in the GC’s office
The survey was administered by Cornell’s Survey Research Institute, and respondents had the choice of completing the survey by phone, by mail, or by web
Page 18/27
Testing the Model
We first test a firm’s portfolio of ADR practices using linear and ordinal regressions
We then test each of the individual ADR practices (arbitration, med-arb, fact-finding, peer review, in-house grievance system, early case assessment) and also the firm’s having a dispute resolution office or ombuds function, using logistic regressions
Finally, we interact our key independent variables (commitment to ADR and strategic orientations) and assess whether this interaction affects a firm’s portfolio of practices
Page 19/27
Total ADR Practices(Linear)
Total ADR Practices(Ordinal)
Conflict Management System(Logistic)
Efficiency n.s. n.s. n.s.
Litigation Avoidance Positive*** Positive** Positive*
Sustainable Resolution Positive* Positive** n.s.
ADR Commitment Positive*** Positive*** Positive***
Regression Results
Page 20/27
ArbitrationFact-Finding(Logistic)
Med-Arb(Logistic)
Peer-Review (Logistic)
In-House Grievance System (Logistic)
Early Case Assessment (Logistic)
Efficiency Orientation
Negative* n.s. n.s. n.s. Positive* n.s.
LitigationsAvoidanceOrientation
Positive** n.s. n.s. Positive** n.s. Positive*
Sustainable Resolution Orientation
n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. Positive**
ADR Commitment
n.s. Positive** Positive*** Positive** Positive*** n.s.
Regression Results
Page 21/27
33
.54
4.5
55
.5N
um
ber
of W
ork
pla
ce
AD
R P
ractices
-1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5Efficiency Scale
Low Commitment to ADR High Commitment to ADR
Efficiency Orientation * Commitment to Employee ADR
Interaction Terms
Page 22/27
34
56
7N
um
ber
of W
ork
pla
ce
AD
R P
ractices
-1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5Sustainable Resolutions Scale
Low Commitment to ADR High Commitment to ADR
Sustainable Resolutions Orientation * Commitment to Employee ADR
Interaction Terms
Page 23/27
Interaction Terms2
34
5N
um
ber
of W
ork
pla
ce
AD
R P
ractices
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2Litigation Avoidance Scale
Low Commitment to ADR High Commitment to ADR
Litigation Avoidance Orientation * Commitment to Employee ADR
Interaction Terms
Page 24/27
Summary and Conclusions
Over the past 15 years, a growing number of major U.S. corporations – currently about 50 percent – have adopted ADR as their principal approach to resolving employment disputes
Many corporations have adopted a wider array of ADR techniques, including early neutral evaluation, early case assessment, and conflict coaching: they are using a growing portfolio of ADR techniques
Page 25/27
Summary and Conclusions
What factors have driven U.S. corporations to adopt and use ADR practices and conflict management systems?
Our results suggest that management’s strategic objectives and its commitment to ADR appear to be significant factors driving the corporate use of ADR practices and systems
Managerial conflict management strategy explains both variation in the total number of practices adopted and specific practices included in the portfolio
Page 26/27
Summary and Conclusions
We find strong support for a strategic choice model in the adoption of conflict management practices
Our findings suggest the need to expand the study of managerial conflict management strategies and their implications for organizational practices
Practitioners facilitating the adoption of ADR and CMS need to consider a firm’s strategic orientation
We also find that organizational commitment to ADR moderates the relationship between a firm’s conflict management strategy and adoption patterns
