John was always perfect in his work. However, on several occasions, he had been accused of professional misconduct. When the organization he worked for could no longer tolerate him, he was dismissed. He sought judiciary redress and to the utter disbelief of the organisation, he was reinstated with compensation for wrongful dismissal.
Why would the courts side with a person of such unprofessional misconduct? The answer lies in understanding the difference between breaches in regulations and conflicts.
A breach in regulations, on one hand, is objective in the sense that it is clear on the labour or HR clause that was broken. Such as a clause against absenteeism for an employee who is always absent.
Conflicts, on the other hand, are subjective and highly opinionated, with no clear clause. To address this challenge, organisations have the Professional Misconduct clause to lump up everything, including actions not handled in specific clauses.
However, when the unprofessional misconduct clause was peeled off, it led to a conflict between John and his colleague. Two kinds of workplace conflict exist: When employees differ on actions, ideas or decisions relating to work and when the two just don’t get along.
The latter is often called ‘a personality clash’. Conflicts are as common as the common cold in the workplace. Handled well, conflicts lead to stronger relationships and better outcomes. Viewing conflicts positively helps in understanding the underlying issues.
Conflicts emanate from day-to-day interactions in the workplace. The workplace is made up of people of diverse beliefs and cultures with the potential of inciting conflicts, sometimes unintentionally. The interpersonal interactions arising from the differences in personal beliefs, priorities and values are at play in most cases.
As the work environment becomes more complex with increasing cultural diversity, the likelihood of such differences leading to conflicts also increases. The common mistake that supervisors make is to be quick to punish an employee deemed to be in the wrong in a conflict. Punishing employee for breaches is straightforward, however, conflicts require a carefully thought-out process.
Does it mean that employees who are perpetually rude, unprofessional, lack respect, bully, or whatever goes into this category, should be let off the hook? An emphatic no!
There exist interventions that HR should spearhead in resolving workplace conflicts. A child who grew up arguing with their parents will always argue with his boss. A person from a cultural background where everyone is engaged in decision-making will find it difficult when an unpopular decision is made by the supervisor. Equally, science supports that children brought up in abusive relationships will likely be rude and lack respect. These people are in the workplaces.
For work-related conflicts, one intervention is to have an open policy through a one-on-one with the employee, and just talk, laugh and engage. It seems silly and a waste of time, but you end up understanding the factors contributing to the conflict.
Supervisors who create rapport with their subordinates tend to suppress even the “hard to handle” employees. Through the concept of motivation interviewing, the employee is allowed to express himself freely, until he buys into the idea that his behaviour affects performance. This awareness in MI then leads to him volunteering a solution by himself, not you, only with your guidance. Such solutions tend to stick.
For personality clash conflicts, Cultural Competence training of employees is becoming a must for organizations. The training empowers employees to have the experience, awareness and skills to work with people of diverse cultures.
Specific topics include stereotyping, self-awareness, communication skills, bias and the manifestation of cultural and tribal preferences in employees unknowingly. The focus is on self, not the other person. If everyone focuses on themselves, conflicts are reduced.
The will of the organisation can still prevail against John in court if the organisation is able to show its intervention efforts failed to bear fruits and prove beyond reasonable doubt that the conflict affects performance negatively. The key issue is in subjecting the employee to internal corrective, not punitive, mechanisms to try and address conflicts.
The writer holds an MBA in Strategic Management, is a Certified Human Resource Professional (CHRP-K) and a member of the Institute of Human Resource Management (IHRM) with a practicing HR license. The views expressed in this article are her personal opinion, and do not reflect the views of the institutions where she works or has previously worked.
