Line Managers and the Management of

Workplace Conflict: Evidence from Ireland

Working Paper No: MS_WPS_MAN_09_13

Paul Teague
School of Management
Queen’s University of Belfast

and

William K. Roche
School of Business
University College Dublin
 Abstract

In an effort to improve understanding of the role played by line managers in firms, this paper
examines the role of line mangers and supervisors in the management of workplace conflict
in firms in the Republic of Ireland. The paper finds that while line managers are commonly
seen as playing a significant role, they are also seen to do so often without organizational
supports in areas such as training and performance monitoring, and are seen to lack the
confidence to act independently. Line and supervisory ‘engagement’ in conflict management
is found to be positively associated with a series of organizational outcomes, including
relative labour productivity, relative absence rates and the capacity to handle change
compared with other firms in the same industry. Line and supervisory management
engagement in conflict management is found to be associated with the use of commitment-
oriented HRM practices and with the adoption by firms of a proactive approach to conflict
resolution.

1
Introduction

The management literature on the role of line managers in organizations points in two

different directions. One part of the literature challenges the conventional distinction made

between the role of top managers and line managers in organizations. Traditionally, top

managers were seen as being engaged in strategic decision-making, resource allocation and

agenda-setting whereas line managers were concerned with implementing decisions. Recent

research questions this distinction by suggesting that line managers play an active role in

strategic organizational change by shaping senior manager thinking and plans and influencing

the implementation of corporate strategies (Floyd and Wooldridge 2007). Much of this

literature emphasises the strategic sense-making role of line managers, particularly in terms

of codifying and interpreting information (Rouleau and Balogun 2007). This view is

supported by further research that highlights the importance of line managers in creating

employee motivation. On this view, employee behaviour and expectations are more than

anything else shaped by their day-to-day interactions with line managers (Marchington 2008

a; Purcell et al. 2009; Purcell and Hutchinson 2007). Yet another supporting perspective is

that line managers play an indispensable problem-solving role inside organizations, resolving

quarrels between employees and addressing unanticipated difficulties in organizational

operations (Osterman 2009). Thus, one part of the literature stresses the pivotal role of line

managers in organizational performance.

A second part of the literature is less phlegmatic about the activities of line managers in

organizations. The thrush of this body of research is that a gap can exist between the

espoused role line managers are intended to perform inside organization and the actual role

they play (Purcell et al 2009). A number of factors have been identified as inhibiting line

2
managers from carrying out their role effectively. One argument is that senior managers and

line managers are not properly connected in some organizations, causing fault-lines to occur

in the manner in which responsibilities are devolved to line managers (Currie and Poctor

2001). Another view is that line managers are sometimes not provided with adequate

organizational support or training to carry out effectively assigned tasks (Renwick 2003). Yet

a further argument is that time constraints lead to line managers continually making trade-

offs between the different roles expected of them, which occasionally results in some tasks

not being carried out effectively (Nehles 2006). Overall, while this literature does not

disparage line managers, it does tend to highlight how their role is fraught with difficulties.

Thus, ambiguity exists in the literature about how we should understand the role of line

managers inside organizations. For the most part, this ambiguity will only be resolved

through empirical inquiry. To this end, this paper draws on a survey of conflict management

practices in companies in Ireland to ascertain the role played by line managers in managing

workplace problems and grievances. The paper is organised as follows. The first section

outlines the theoretical arguments that can be deployed in support of line managers playing

an active role in managing workplace conflict and explains the difficulties that may arise

when trying to implement this role in practice. The following section reviews the relationship

that is seen to exist between line management engagement in conflict management and wider

organizational outcomes. The third section assesses the factors that might influence the nature

of line management engagement in conflict management. The next section sets out the

research methodology used to collect the data for the study. Then the empirical findings of

the study are set out, with a particular focus on reporting the outcomes associated with line

management engagement and the influences on line management engagement. The final

section summarizes the study’s main conclusions and discusses their implications.

3
Managing Workplace Conflict: The Role of Line Managers

Nearly all prescriptive accounts of the role of line managers in organizations identify

problem-solving and the management of conflict as an integral feature of their work (see

CIPD 2007; 2008a; 2008b; 2008c; Osterman 2009). Various arguments have been put

forward suggesting how line managers can play a conflict management role. First of all, line

managers can help prevent workplace conflict by performing a mentoring and coaching role

(Anderson et al 2009; CIPD 2008a). This involves line managers interacting positively with

employees to develop their skills and competences and more broadly find their way in the job

and organization and even on occasions in life. Coaching and mentoring activity provides line

managers with the opportunity to identify whether employees are encountering workplace

problems. Another important way line managers can prevent the emergence of workplace

conflict is by engaging in ‘sense-making’ activity. Sense-making is the way managers come

to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the organization and its employees (Rouleau

2005). It involves line managers doing two things. One is identifying those activities and

processes that encourage trust and cooperation at the workplace, which in turn are likely to

result in employees having a positive view of the organization. The other is making early

effective interventions to stave off conflict: line managers are in the position to read

unfolding events so that they can react quickly to problems that are simmering (Bendersky

2003). Thus, line managers help prevent workplace conflict by performing a social capital-

type role inside the organization.

Line managers can also play an active role in the resolution of workplace conflict. A

consensus exists in the specialized literature that conflict should be addressed as close to the

point of origin as possible (Ury et al 1989). Because they interact with employees on an on-

4
going basis, line managers and supervisors are ideally positioned to play this role. By

intervening early and informally when a problem arises line managers can broker an informal

settlement to a conflict to the satisfaction of all involved parties. Of course, line managers

will not always be able to perform this role as the nature of the conflict may be of such

magnitude or complexity that the immediate involvement of senior managers, or other

managers charged with roles in formal processes for conflict resolution, may be required. In

fact, being able to differentiate between problems which they should endeavour to solve and

problems they should pass up the managerial hierarchy and/or into formal conflict

management mechanisms is an important skill that line managers should possess (Costantino

and Merchant 1996). Thus, line managers can potentially play decisive informal and formal

roles in the management of workplace conflict. Potentially, they can perform the role of being

the frontline interface with and co-managers of innovative conflict management system,

either solving problems quickly or channelling them to a more appropriate organizational

procedure.

But a number of studies suggest that line managers may not implement properly

organizational policies in general or specifically those policies related to the management of

people (CIPD 2007; 2008a; 2008b; 2008c). In broad terms, the problems associated with line

managers performing a HRM role can be addressed under three headings – delegation,

monitoring and alignment. Consider the delegation problem. To be in the position to perform

a HRM role, line managers must first be delegated responsibility from the HRM department,

partly out of recognition that line managers are better positioned to implement particular

conflict management practices. Several studies have suggested that the delegation process is

fraught with difficulties. In many instances, line managers are seen as being preoccupied with

getting work tasks completed and less concerned with the implementation of HRM-related

5
policies: line managers may neither have the motivation nor commitment to spend time

delivering workplace management policies properly (CIPD 2008b: 2; Maxwell and Watson

2006, McGovern et al 1997 and Cunningham and Hyman 1999). Other studies suggest that

line managers do not share the same outlook and even culture of HRM managers and

therefore do not implement HR policies in the manner that was intended (Wright et al 2001

and Purcell and Hutchinson 2007). Thus, problems with the delegation process can result in

line managers implementing HR policies, including conflict management policies, in a

distorted manner.

Monitoring is the second matter that can have an important influence on whether or not line

managers deliver conflict management policies properly. It is widely recognised that HRM

will only become part of the decision-making apparatus of the organization if it can

credibility and convincingly show how people management practices positively impact on the

organization. Thus, the HRM department must engage in evidence-based management which

involves the collection of data and metrics about how HRM practices advances organizational

performance. As a result, HRM policies must be subject to a process of monitoring and

evaluation to assess which are working effectively and which are failing to accomplish the

tasks they were put in place to do. This monitoring role is relevant to the management of

workplace conflict particularly in the context of delegating this responsibility to line

management. Without evaluation and monitoring, the real danger is that the HRM centre will

have little knowledge about whether line managers are implementing conflict management

practices efficiently or consistently. Thus, monitoring brings order and transparency to the

delegation process. It allows the HRM centre to make considered judgements about the

quality of the conflict management role being performed by line managers. But some studies

6
suggest that this process operates in an informal, ad hoc manner in organizations (Whittaker

and Marchington 2003).

The third problem that can disrupt the effective delivery of HR policies is what can be loosely

termed the alignment problem. There are a number of dimensions to alignment. The first is

that support structures need to be organized so that line managers are provided with support

and assistance to carry out HR activities, including conflict management tasks, efficiently. To

act as the frontline of a conflict management system, line managers require a range of

problem-solving skills and competences: they have to be good listeners and communicators;

they need the ability to survey all possible solutions to a problem; they need to act in a

manner that secures the trust of those involved in the conflict. Without these skills, they are

unlikely to perform a conflict management role satisfactorily even if they are committed to

doing so (CIPD 2008b; Whittaker and Marchington 2003). However, line managers are

unlikely to acquire these skills unless they have access to formal training programmes.

Another aspect to the alignment problem is creating an incentive structure that encourages

line managers to take seriously their conflict management responsibilities (Harris 2001).

Usually, this incentive structure is seen as involving the conflict management activity of line

managers being built into their performance appraisal to make them accountable for their

actions in the area (Hales 2005).

The final dimension of the alignment problem is the connection between the primary conflict

management role of line managers and other policies or mechanisms to manage workplace

problems. A key theme in the literature on workplace conflict management is that employees

should have access to multiple channels to seek redress to workplace problems (Zack 1997).

7
Thus, best practice would suggest that in addition to giving line managers responsibility to

manage workplace conflict other complementary procedures should be developed so that

alternative problem-solving pathways are open to employees. The pivotal idea here involves

the creation of ‘conflict management systems’ in which line and supervisory involvement in

primary-level conflict management is seen as the core feature of a range of innovative

practices for conflict resolution that may also involve HR or industrial relations specialists

and possibly other professionals such as ombudspersons and internal or external mediators or

arbitrators (Ewing 1989, Lipskey et al. 2003).

There is an emerging literature suggesting that organizations are developing innovative

conflict management strategies, built around so-called ‘alternative dispute resolution

practices ’ (ADR), to move away from, or least an amend, established practices used to

address individual and group grievances and disputes in the workplace (Zack 1997). Table 1

outlines the ADR practices and approaches that may be used to address individual and group-

based workplace conflict. In practice, organizations are unlikely to possess all these practices,

as they will tend instead to opt for a pick and mix approach, selecting the practices that best

fit their circumstances (Dunlop and Zack 1997). In relation to workplace conflict involving

individual employees, ADR practices seek to realize a number of objectives. One is that

conflict should be solved as near as possible to its origins. Another is that individuals should

have easy access to a variety of practices and procedures and have confidence that their

problem will be addressed confidentially and fairly (Cropanzano 2008).

ADR practices to address group-based workplace conflict have a slightly different rationale.

In part this involves seeking to avert or otherwise providing for the resolution of disputes

within or between work groups or between work groups and the organization (Bendersky

8
2003; Kaminski 1999). In part also it may involve developing an efficient collective

bargaining system inside the unionized organization so that trade unions and management

reach agreement quickly and with the minimum of conflict (Barrett and O’Dowd 2005). Most

of the time, this is seen as being realized by an ‘interest-based’ bargaining, which encourages

a more cooperative approach to negotiations as agreements are sought that incorporate the

interests of all parties (Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2003). In addition, organizations sometimes use

brainstorming sessions and rich information and communication systems as a procedure to

head-off group-based conflict. The purpose of these initiatives is to provide employees with

an effective voice so that workplace problems can be deliberated in a manner that builds up

cooperation and unity of purpose between employees and management.

Occasionally, organizations augment internal conflict management procedures by using

external experts. Getting external people to help solve internal problems is seen as yielding a

number of benefits. In some circumstances, they can play the positive role of eliciting

information from employees about particular problems which they may not impart to

managers (Marchington 2008b). Additionally, external experts may provide worthwhile

advice to managers (and unions) on how a group-based problem could be resolved: on

occasions they may have to perform a facilitating or mediating role to undo a deadlock

between managers and employees in negotiations (Lewicki et al 1992).

Line Management Engagement and Organizational Outcomes

The thrust of the preceding analysis is that organizational processes which directly affect the

nature of line managers’ engagement with workplace conflict as well as the formal processes

or systems used by organizations to address and resolve conflict shape how conflict is

handled in organizations and as a result may influence key organizational outcomes affected

9
by conflict. In summary, the literature highlights key facets of line management activity

likely to contribute to effective conflict management and thereby to organizational

effectiveness. These include the formal devolution to line managers of authority to resolve

conflict; conducting regular face-to-face meetings with employees to gauge potential flash-

points; training in conflict management skills, holding line managers formally accountable

for conflict handling and resolution, and line managers having the capacity to operate with

independence in this area, in the sense of not being chronically reliant on HR managers or

other executives. Here we treat these attributes as facets of what will be referred to as ‘line

and supervisory engagement’ in conflict management.

There is virtually no recent literature on the amount of time line managers spend on solving

workplace conflict relative to other responsibilities they are assigned to carry out. But there is

evidence to suggest that where line management address workplace conflict effectively the

result is enhanced organizational performance. In their recent UK study, Purcell et al (2009)

found that where employees feels positive about their relationship with their front line

managers they are more likely to have higher levels of job satisfaction, commitment and

loyalty, factors which are associated with higher levels of performance or discretionary effort.

Similarly, a number of USA-based studies argue that high performance teams are more likely

to be maintained in organizations where middle managers play a positive role in resolving

workplace conflict: they are seen as positively contributing to the creation of an

organizational climate that facilitates effective team working and employee engagement as

well as the early resolution of workplace problems (Colvin et al 2006; Ewing 1989). Studies

by the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development (CIPD) also indicate that HR

specialists view the nature of line managers’ involvement in handling workplace conflict as

pivotal to the effectiveness with which organizations manage conflict, and that this is linked

10
with a series of outcomes, including productivity, the quality of working relationships and

organizational innovation (CIPD 2008a). Survey data from the CIPD suggest that employees

also believe the effectiveness with which conflict is managed is related essentially to the

same outcomes (CIPD 2008c).

Thus, line managers, actively promoting positive working relationships and employee

behaviour as well as solving workplace problems, may be an important aspect of high

performance workplaces. This observation chimes with the large number of studies that seek

to establish a connection between HRM practices and organizational performance, some of

which are more robust than others (Wall and Wood 2005). Interestingly, the contribution that

the HRM activities of line management make to organizational performance rarely figures in

this literature (Boselie et al 2005). Usually, the focus is placed on variables such as the degree

of shared commitment between management and employees, decentralised teams and

decision-making structures, individual and group rewards systems and job security. But just

as these elements of an innovative or high commitment HRM system may help create the

internal behavioural foundations for high grade organizational performance so to can

effective conflict management practices, particularly those that involve line managers. This is

so because if employees feel their problems are not being properly addressed they may

become disengaged in one way or another from the organization, with negative consequences

for organizational performance (CIPD 2008c). Thus, it is important to assess the extent to

which line management engagement in conflict management has a wider effect on

organizational performance, such as contributing to better employee engagement or labour

productivity.

11
Influences on Line Management Engagement

What clues might the literature provide as to key influences on the degree to which line

managers and supervisors engage proactively in conflict management? First, it is claimed

that organizations that place a high priority on progressive HR policies are more likely to

adopt innovative approaches to conflict management, including ADR practices (Lipsky et al.

2003: 61-2; Bingham and Chachere 1999: 100). While this contention is supported in the

literature by little explicit argument, we suggest that the objectives of progressive or

commitment-oriented HRM to foster consensus and commitment in the workplace are best

supported by line management engagement in conflict resolution, and further that HRM also

places a premium on the devolution of HR management activities generally to line managers

and that this posture should extend to the management of conflict in the workplace. (Meyer et

al. 2003; Lewin 2001; Gratton et al. 1999).

Overlapping with this view is the argument that innovative approaches to managing conflict

have been influenced by the advent of high-performance work organization (HPWO). As

being unable to settle work grievances and employees fairly and efficiently may be costly:

without proactive means for preventing and resolving conflict, employee commitment and

loyalty may be damaged in a manner that could hinder HPWOs (Lipsky and Avgar 2004;

Lipsky et al 2003; Kaminski 1999). Lipsky and Avgar’s (2004) emphasis on innovations in

conflict management as a response to the rebuilding of competitiveness suggests that these

innovations may be more likely where firms seek to compete mainly on the basis of quality or

innovation rather than on the basis of cost: these competitive attributes again seeming to

prioritize organizational attributes particularly vulnerable to conflict: a capacity for ongoing

change in products or processes, as well as co-operation and consensus.

12
The advent of innovative approaches to conflict management is sometimes seen as part of a

strategy of union avoidance (Lipsky and Avgar 2004; Lipsky et al. 2003; Bingham and

Chachere 1999). The literature also identifies a series of environmental developments that are

viewed as critical influences on innovations in conflict management. Rowe (1997) asserts

that organizations need to develop systematic conflict management strategies to

accommodate employees who in the main are likely to be more educated and assertive and

less willing to defer to managerial decision-making. An additional calculation is that the

significant increase in employment legislation requires organizations to address conflict

effectively so to avoid an unwelcome and potentially damaging involvement in some form of

judicial process (Teague 2007). Yet a further view is that organizations operating in markets

where there is a premium on recruiting highly skilled and talented employment will be

obliged to keep abreast of emerging best HRM practices, including practices to resolve

workplace conflict, to promote the reputation of being an ‘employer-of-choice’ (Horibe

1999).

Before examining empirically a series of hypotheses derived from the literatures on the

nature, outcomes and influences on line management involvement in conflict management,

we first 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 sector

and state-owned commercial enterprises employing 50 or more employees in the Republic of

Ireland in 2008.1 In the design and validation of the questionnaire, focus groups were

conducted separately with a group of experienced HR practitioners and with professional

staff of the Irish state agency responsible for assisting parties involved in employment

13
disputes, the Labour Relations Commission (LRC). The focus groups were supplemented by

intensive discussions with other practitioners, including HR managers, several consultants

with experience in conflict management using both traditional and alternative dispute

management approaches and a former trade union official. These design procedures provided

useful feedback, allowing us to ensure that the set of conflict management practices presented

to survey respondents were intelligible, unambiguous and as comprehensive as possible. A

draft pilot copy of the survey questionnaire was completed by other HR practitioners, who

also provided detailed feedback on the instrument. The survey was funded by the LRC. The

sampling design strategy was designed by the authors in conjunction with the Survey Unit of

the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Ireland’s leading non-profit research

organization. The survey fieldwork was managed by the ESRI in association with the

international research firm, Ipsos Mori.2 The survey questionnaire was piloted on a sample of

firms, and intensive follow up interviews were conducted with number of responding firms.

The questionnaire was further amended on the basis of the feedback obtained.3 The final

questionnaire contained 24 questions covering the features of conflict management practices

in use, related HR and industrial relations practices and other features of firms.

The target respondent was the person most familiar with the handling of conflict in the

workplace. Our expectation was that this would generally be the manager responsible for

human resources or industrial relations, whether that person was a HR/IR specialist, or

combined HR/IR duties with other managerial concerns. The questionnaire was

distributed by post, and several reminders and follow-ups were issued by the fieldwork

team. A definition of workplace conflict was included at the head of the questionnaire.

This was done with a view to ensuring that survey respondents shared a common

understanding of the area. It also provided a means of countering any possible non-

14
cooperation and non-response that might arise from either workplace conflict, or

provisions for conflict management, being viewed in a negative light, or associated only

with unionized workplaces.4 The definition provided was as follows:

Workplace conflict involves differences of view and conflict between individual employees
and their employer; among individuals; and between groups of employees, whether
unionized or not, and their employer. It is recognized that the management of workplace
conflict can have beneficial effects for employers, employees and other stakeholders in
the business.
The sampling strategy adopted a disproportionate design by firm size so as to ensure that an

adequate number of firms in the largest size category were included in the sample. Survey

data were weighted to correct for the over-sampling of large firms and to adjust for

differences in response rates across firms in different size ranges and sectors.5 Descriptive

research results reported below are based on weighted data estimates. The overall survey

response rate obtained was 23 per cent (20 per cent in the case of firms in the 50-249

employees category and 30 per cent in the case of firms in the 250+ employees category).

This is satisfactory and well in line with both international experience. The resulting sample

comprises 360 enterprises. Standard tests were conducted to investigate whether the results

were likely to have been affected by non-response bias. These provided no evidence that non-

response bias was a significant problem affecting the data.6 As a single survey respondent

provided data on all survey variables, considerable care was taken in devising and wording

items and variables to reduce measurement error, including common-method variance, and

Harman’s single-factor test was conducted to test for common-method variance (Podsakoff et

al. 2003). The results do not suggest that common method variance was a significant problem

affecting the survey results.7

15
Hypotheses and Results

We next propose and examine empirically a series of hypotheses that synthesize the disparate

strands of the literature on the role of line managers in conflict management, addressing the

features, outcomes and influences on line management involvement in the area.

H1: Reflecting the various organizational ‘inhibitors’ that constrain the work
and effectiveness of line managers and supervisors (limited or uneven
devolution from senior managers, poorly developed organizational supports
and incentives, time constraints and the demands of other job tasks), the
pattern of line management engagement in conflict management will be found
to vary considerably across different dimensions of this activity.

H2: Proactive line and supervisory management engagement in conflict

management will affect key organizational outcomes of concern to employers:
the employment relations climate, voluntary staff turnover, absence rates,
productivity and the capacity to achieve organizational change.

H3: The effects of line and supervisory management engagement on these key
employer outcomes will be positively moderated by formal conflict
management systems with multiple ADR practices.

The pattern of engagement with conflict management

An examination of hypothesis 1, involves investigating the extent and nature of the process

whereby line managers are assigned and conduct workplace conflict management

responsibilities. This is done by presenting the results of a series of questions examining the

nature of line managers’ and supervisors’ involvement in the resolution of workplace

16
conflict, as perceived by managers best placed to assess conflict management. Table 2

presents the relevant data, weighted both to represent the population of firms and to represent

the proportions of employees in the workforce working in firms with the practices profiled. In

general the results suggest that in most companies line managers are seen as routinely

engaging in the resolution of conflict in the workplace. The Table also reveals that line

managers in most firms are required to conduct regular face-to-face meetings with employees

to gauge areas of concern to them and to resolve problems: nearly 23 per cent of respondents

indicate their strong agreement and 52 per cent their agreement with the statements presented

in the Table with respect to line management activity in this area. These results suggest that

the majority of firms expect their line managers to play an important sense-making role in

terms of continually gauging the mood of employees and solving any identified problems. In

addition, the Table indicates that 76 per cent of respondents either strongly agree or agree (21

per and 55 per cent respectively) with the statement that their organization formally enables

line managers to resolve employees’ problems quickly and informally, wherever possible.

When the data are weighted to take account of the proportion of employees working in the

firms to which these results apply, the picture largely remains as before with respect to the

overall distribution of responses.

Thus, it is evident that the majority of firms are seen by respondents as assigning line

managers a role in preventing and solving workplace conflict. This finding immediately begs

the question as to whether adequate support and incentive arrangements are in place to help

line managers perform this role. The Table reports that just under half of survey respondents

agree that line managers and supervisors were formally trained to handle workplace conflict –

notwithstanding the substantial majorities indicating that line managers and supervisors were

required both to handle and resolve problems, as revealed by the results for the first two items

17
examined. In addition, just over half of respondents agreed that line manager and supervisor

competence in employee relations was specifically assessed when their performance was

being appraised. These results indicate that managers best placed to assess line managers’

activities with respect to conflict management see line managers and supervisors as

commonly active on workplace conflict matters, but at the same time as very often operating

without the kinds of formal organizational and management supports identified in the

literature as key attributes of effective line and supervisory engagement in the area: training

and formal accountability for performance assessment.

Although it would defy what is generally considered best practice, this situation might not

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

to ascertain views on this point. Table 2 indicates that just under half of respondents agreed

with the statement that line managers and supervisors lacked the confidence to resolve

workplace conflict and relied instead on HR managers or other senior managers for this

purpose. Only 7 per cent of respondents strongly disagreed that line managers lacked the

confidence to resolve workplace conflict and one in four respondents disagreed with the

statement. This suggests that only about a third of the surveyed firms had a positive view

about the role line managers played in the management of workplace conflict. Confidence in

line managers and supervisors being able to operate independently with respect to workplace

conflict resolution achieved the lowest level of endorsement by the managers surveyed. The

pattern of results again remains largely unaltered when the data are weighted to represent the

proportion of employees working in firms with the profile of responses presented. 8 Overall,

the findings presented in Table 1 suggest that a sizable number of firms possess the following

asymmetric characteristics with respect to the activities of line managers and supervisors in

18
managing: conflict management responsibilities are delegated to line managers; inadequate

support structures are put in place to help them perform this role; and the capacity of line

managers to perform their conflict management duties with confidence and without a high

level of reliance on other executives seems to be in considerable doubt. Overall, the evidence

presented appears consistent with hypothesis 1.

Outcomes of engagement with conflict management

The next step in our analysis involves examining whether the proactive engagement in

conflict management by line managers and supervisors affected a series of organizational

outcomes. Hypothesis 2 reflects the claims in some of the literature that effective line and

supervisory involvement in conflict management can positively influence a series of

organizational outcomes. Given the provenance of our data, here our focus is on outcomes

relevant to employers. In order to test hypothesis 2 we develop a scale of line management

and supervisory engagement by combining replies to each of the items profiled in Table 2.

The resulting scale Alpha is 0.695, and factor analysis revealed the scale to have a single

underlying dimension. The scale can thus be viewed as measuring the degree to which line

managers and supervisors are seen to be proactively engaged in conflict resolution, supported

by a compatible organizational architecture and with confidence in their capacity to resolve

conflict independently.

To assess whether line engagement might be associated with positive organizational

outcomes respondents were asked to assess the performance of their company across a series

of areas relative to other companies in their industry. The areas covered were the level of

labour productivity, the rate of voluntary labour turnover, the rate of absence through

sickness or other causes and the capacity to handle change. Responses were scored on a 1-5

19
scale, ranging from 1 = ‘a lot below average’ to 5 = ‘a lot above average. Respondents were

also asked to respond to the statement ‘the conflict resolution practices [in use] contribute

positively to the climate of employment relations in the company’. The 4 response categories

provided varied from ‘strongly disagree’ to strongly agree.

A series of control variables need to be entered in assessing the effects of line and

supervisory management engagement on these outcomes. First, HRM practices have been

shown to affect the outcomes under examination (Subramony 2009; Boeslie et al. 2005;

Coombs et al 2006). A scale measuring the degree to which firms have adopted practices

commonly associated with the commitment-oriented approach to HRM was constructed

based on the incidence of a series of eleven HR practices widely associated with

commitment-oriented HRM in the literature (see Wall and Wood 2005). The practices

included are formally-designated team-working, regular employee surveys, the assessment of

employees’ values, attitudes or personality at the time of hiring, formal performance

management, individual performance-related pay, group performance-related pay, profit-

sharing/share ownership, a policy of no compulsory redundancies, common (single-status)

terms and conditions of employment, a system of regular team briefing that provides

employees with business information and internal career progression as a formal objective for

all employees. The Alpha coefficient for the scale is 0.644 and the scale is again treated as

uni-dimensional on the basis of the results of latent class factor analysis.9

Scales combining ADR practices established to address grievances involving individual

employees and contentious issues involving groups of employees were also entered into the

regressions first as control variables in equations estimating the effects of line and

supervisory engagement on the outcomes examined, and second as potential moderators

20
affecting the outcomes of line and supervisory engagement. The ADR practices included

were use of company ombudspersons, employee advocates, ‘hotline’ or email-based ‘speak-

up’ services, open-door polices, external experts (other than the public dispute resolution

services) used to address grievances involving individuals, review panels of manager or

peers, external experts used to prevent deadlock in discussions within the company, external

arbitrators (other than from the public dispute resolution services)used in group or collective

disputes, ‘brainstorming’, problem-solving and related techniques to solve problems and to

resolve disputes, formal interest-based bargaining techniques and intensive formal

communications regarding impending change with groups of employees, with a view to

avoiding disharmony or conflict. Controls were entered for company size, union recognition

and sector (details contained at the foot of Table 3).

As all dependent variables were measured using ordinal scales, ordinal regression is the

appropriate method to estimate the effects of line and supervisory engagement on the

outcomes examined. First, a series of ordinal regressions were estimated for all outcomes

examined. The results of these are reported in column 3.1 of Table 3. The results suggest that

line and supervisory engagement is positively associated with assessments of relative labour

productivity and the capacity to handle change and with assessments of the effects of conflict

resolution practices in general on the employment relations climate, and negatively associated

with the rate of absences due to sickness and other causes. It has no effect on assessments of

the rate of voluntary labour turnover relative to competitors. The results provide substantial if

not altogether consistent support for hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 3 proposes that the effects of line and supervisory engagement on outcomes will

be positively mediated by sets of ADR practices focused on averting and resolving disputes

21
involving individuals or groups. This hypothesis derives from one of the key facets of

organizational alignment between line managers and supervisors and formal organizational

systems for managing conflict, discussed earlier. It is also consistent with the pivotal role that

the literature expects line managers to play at the interface with formal conflict management

mechanisms. As discussed earlier, the literature on innovative practices for managing

workplace conflict commonly views line managers and supervisors as focal points in ‘conflict

management systems’. In these systems they are seen as being both capable of resolving

conflict directly, and of acting as conduits channelling disputes to formal mechanisms

through which it may be addressed by specialist HR managers, or other managers, including

managers with line responsibility. To test hypothesis 3 the ordinal regressions reported in

column 3.1 were re-estimated but this time containing an interaction term between line and

supervisory engagement and the ADR practices scale. The results for the interaction term are

reported in column 3.2. They are clear-cut – none of the interaction terms approach statistical

significance - and indicate, contrary to expectations, that the effect of line and supervisory

engagement on outcomes is not altered in any significant manner in firms where line

managers’ and supervisors engage in conflict management in the context of formal systems

comprising extensive use of ADR mechanisms. Hypothesis 3 must be rejected.

Examining Influences on Engagement

The final step in our analysis involves examining a series of possible influences on variations

in the degree of line management and supervisory engagement in conflict management and

resolution. Consistent with the literature we expect a number of influences to be positively

associated with line and supervisory engagement. The first of these is the degree to which

firms have adopted commitment-oriented HR practices: on the one hand we expect HRM to

be associated with the devolution of significant HR responsibilities to line managers and

22
supervisors and on the other hand we expect an approach involving HRM to be accompanied

by a proactive approach to line and supervisory involvement in managing conflict. The HRM

scale, described earlier, will be used to measure the degree to which firms have adopted

HRM. We also expect line engagement to be associated with competitive postures

prioritizing quality and/or innovation over cost, as such postures are commonly associated

with product and process dynamism and this in turn is best supported by proactive conflict

management.

The approach used to portray the competitive postures of firms follows the broad method

adopted by Osterman (1994), which involved developing a scale measuring the degree to

which firms prioritized competing on the basis of quality or innovation relative to cost.10

Active line and supervisory management involvement in conflict resolution is viewed as

particularly important in the literature in handling conflict affecting groups of workers

engaged in high-skill or knowledge-intensive work tasks and activities. Work processes of

this kind are again likely to put a premium on avoiding disharmony and conflict and so

should be associated with higher levels of line and supervisory management engagement in

the resolution of workplace conflict. To test for this possibility, a variable estimating the

proportion of a firm’s workforce engaged in high-skill or knowledge-intensive work tasks

and activities is included in the analysis. The likely influence of these variables is addressed

in a further hypothesis:

H4: Levels of line management engagement in conflict management will be

associated with high-commitment HRM, quality and/or innovation based
competitive postures and with a high proportion of employees engaged in skill
or knowledge-intensive work.

23
In addition to such potential influences, as discussed earlier a series of other internal and

external and influences are associated in the literature either with line managers’ and

supervisors’ engagement in conflict resolution, with innovations in conflict management

practices more generally, or with both aspects of conflict management. A series of eight

survey questions sought to portray respondents’ views as to the impact of different types of

influences on the approach that firms had adopted to conflict resolution. The questions and

associated variables were are follows: ‘responding to the expanding body of legislation

providing employees with individual employment rights’; ‘adapting work and employment

arrangements to changes needed in response to competitive pressures’; preventing unions

extending their influence into, or within, the company’; devoting a minimum outlay of time

and resources to the handling of workplace conflict’; ‘developing a less adversarial

employment relations climate’; ‘expediting conflict management and/or resolving conflict in-

house’; emulating best practice in conflict management in leading companies’, and

‘responding to growing assertiveness by employees aware of their employment rights’. All

were measured on a Likert-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 of underlying

postures or approaches influenced by different constellations of environmental pressures,

exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the set of eight variables. This identified two

factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1 (for the details of the factor analysis see Appendix

Table 1). 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 best

practice in leading companies and responding to growing assertiveness by employees aware

24
of their employment rights. A second factor measures a posture which we label ‘union

avoidance/containment’. Loading on this factor are preventing unions from extending their

influence into, or within, the company and devoting a minimum outlay of time and resources

to the handling of workplace conflict. A relatively straightforward concern to contain unions,

but with little investment of time or resources in the handling of conflict management per se,

appears to be the underlying disposition here - a disposition sometimes referred to as ‘union

suppression’. The identification of these postures suggests two further hypotheses:

H5: Line and supervisory engagement will be positively associated with a

proactive approach to conflict management.

H6: As union suppression involves little investment in conflict management,

line and supervisory engagement will be negatively associated with a concern
to contain or suppress unions.

It appears likely that the influence of these variables may follow direct and/or indirect paths.

Thus, we might expect all variables to influence line and supervisory engagement directly,

but we might also expect some variables, specifically the degree to which firms compete on

the basis of quality and innovation and the incidence of skill or knowledge work, also to

influence line and supervisory engagement indirectly through their influence on the incidence

of HRM. Consistent with our theoretical reasoning above, we also expect HRM to be

associated with a proactive approach to conflict management. Thus, HRM may also be

indirectly associated with line engagement through the mediating influence of a proactive

approach to line and supervisory engagement.

A path model is the appropriate estimating method to test for such direct and indirect effects.

Path coefficients were estimated through a series of OLS regression equations and also

through a structural equation model (SEM), with SEM variables in the path analysis treated

for this purpose as manifest variables. OLS and SEM maximum likelihood estimates were

25
found to be consistent, and SEM path coefficients are presented in Figure 1. They indicate

that HRM (p < 0.01) and a proactive approach to conflict resolution (p < 0.05) influence line

and supervisory management directly. HRM also influences line and supervisory engagement

through its association with a proactive approach to conflict resolution. A quality and/or

innovation focused competitive posture and skill or knowledge work influence line and

supervisory engagement indirectly through their association with HRM. Hypothesis 4 is

confirmed but with indirect effects predominating – of the influences addressed, only HRM

and having a direct effect on line and supervisory engagement. Hypothesis 5 is also

confirmed: line and supervisory engagement being positively associated with a proactive

approach to conflict. Hypothesis 6 is disconfirmed. Union containment is found to have no

association with line and supervisory engagement rather than the negative effect expected. It

appears that firms orienting their conflict handling activities to union containment or

avoidance, with minimum outlay of time and resources, may or may not align this underlying

concern with line and supervisory engagement.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The motivation behind this study is to improve understanding of the role played by line

managers in organizations, particularly in relation to how they help solve workplace conflict.

To this end, we have reviewed quite disparate strands of the literature on the potential and

problems associated with line managers enacting HRM-style practices as well as on the role

of line managers as a problem-solver in organizations. A feature of this literature is its heavy

prescriptive character: few studies seek to investigate empirically whether line managers in

practice actually carry out the particular tasks they are advocated to perform. We have sought

to avoid this shortcoming by using a number of carefully constructed hypotheses based on a

close reading of the literature to interrogate data from a survey on the topic. We believe this

26
to be the most detailed study of the area in Ireland and, to the best of our knowledge, remains

one of the most detailed and recent studies of the field.

A number of important findings emerge from our study. First, of all, line managers were

found to be formally involved in the routine management and resolution of workplace

conflict in many organizations, but commonly without formal training or recurrent

assessment of their competence in this area. Line managers were seen by many senior

managers as lacking in confidence when handling workplace conflict. These findings add to

the relatively small body of empirical literature that reveals a picture of line managers

significantly at variance with that portrayed in the more prescriptive HRM literature, where

the delegation of HR to the line occurs in the context of well aligned roles and

responsibilities, reinforced by organizational support systems and incentives. For many line

managers grappling with conflict in the workplace, little support or reinforcement appears to

be forthcoming from the organizations in which they work.

Secondly, the study found empirical support for the argument that emerges frequently in the

literature that line and supervisory engagement in conflict management is associated with a

range of positive organizational outcomes, which are particularly relevant to employers:

relative labour productivity, relative absence rates and the capacity to handle change

compared with other firms in the same industry. In addition, the assessed effects of conflict

resolution practices as a whole on the climate of employment relations were also found to be

higher in organizations the greater the degree of line and supervisory engagement in conflict

management. But the study did not find that the role of line managers in resolving workplace

conflict would be enhanced if organizations also adopt multiple ADR-based practices. This

third finding of the study suggests that the strong argument made in the literature that line and

27
supervisory engagement needs to be aligned with an integrated, modernised ADR-based

conflict management system may be overplayed.

A fourth finding of the study is that line and supervisory managers’ engagement, defined in

terms of routine, confident and independent involvement in conflict management, supported

by training and monitored and incentivized by recurrent performance assessment is most

developed by firms that have adopted commitment-oriented HRM practices. It is in firms

adopting such a HRM model that we find line managers and supervisors adopting the most

developed and well aligned roles in the area of conflict management. This finding is

consistent with a large swathe of HRM literature on the topic. In addition, firms adopting a

proactive approach to conflict management are also found to influence positively line and

supervisory engagement directly. This reflects concern with a series of issues, in particular

the expanding body of legislation extending individual employment rights, employees

growing assertiveness in the context of these rights and a more general concern to emulate

best practice, as represented by the practices in operation in leading companies. Firms that

take cognizance of these and related developments are more likely to assign line managers

and supervisors a developed and well supported role in conflict management. The

competitive postures of organizations that prioritize innovation and quality over cost and the

skill- or knowledge intensive work were found to only influence line and supervisory

engagement indirectly by encouraging organizations to develop high commitment HRM

models. However no evidence was found for the relatively popular idea in the US literature

(see Ewing 1998) that line and supervisory engagement is associated with a concern with

union avoidance or containment.

28
Overall, the most important finding of our study is that developed, confident, independent

and well supported line and supervisory involvement in conflict management is a direct

function mainly of the adoption of commitment-oriented HRM and indirectly of the

influences that prompt firms to invest in this model. Organizations without commitment-

oriented HRM policies are likely to possess inadequate support structures to assist line

managers in carrying conflict management activities. It is hardly surprising to find that senior

managers in these organizations have not got full confidence in line managers carrying out

these functions. In terms of the wider debate about the role of line managers in organizations,

the message of this paper suggests is that we should be neither too phlegmatic nor too

downbeat: line managers can either be effective or ineffective. Putting in place appropriate

organizational support structures is most likely way to ensure that line managers perform a

positive role.

29
References

Anderson, V Rayner, C. and Schyns, B. (2009), Coaching at the Sharp End: The role of line
managers in coaching at work, London, CIPD

Bach S. and Sisson, K. (2000), ‘Personnel Management in Perspective’, in Bach S. and

Sisson K., (ed), Personnel Management: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice,
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

Barrett, J.T. and O’Dowd, J., ( 2005), Interest-Based Bargaining: A User’s Guide, Oxford,
Trafford Publishing

Bendersky, C. (2003). Organizational Dispute Resolution Systems: A complementarities

model, Academy of Management Review, 28: 643-656
Bingham, L. and D. Chachere. (1999). “Dispute Resolution in Employment: The Need for
Research” In Eaton, A. E. and Keefe, J. H. (eds), Employment Dispute Resolution and
Worker Rights in the Changing Workplace. Champaign, IL: Industrial Relations Research
Association

Boselie, P., Dietz, G., Boon, C., (2005), ‘Commonalities and Contradictions in HRM and
Performance Research, Human Resource Management Journal, 15: 67-94.
Brewster, C. and Soderstrom M., (1994), ‘Human resources and line management,’ in
Brewster C. and Hegewisch A., Policy and Practice in European Human Resource
Management, London: Routledge
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 of Workplace Conflict, London: CIPD.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), (2008b), Managing Conflict at

Work: A Guide for Line Managers, London: CIPD.

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

Colvin, J., Klaas B, and Mahony. D., (2006), ‘Research on Alternative Dispute Resolution
Procedures.’ Chapter 4 in David Lewin, ed., Contemporary Issues in Employment Relations,
Champaign, IL: Labor and Employment Relations Association: 103-147..

Combs, J., Liu, Y. Hall, Ketchen, D. (2006), ‘How Much Do High-Performance Work
Practices matter? A Meta-Analysis of Their Effects on Organizational Performance,
Personnel Psychology, 59, 501-28.
Costantino, C. And Merchant C. (1996). Designing conflict management systems: A guide to
creating productive and healthy organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass

30
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E. and Gilliland S. W., (2008), ‘The Management of
Organizational Justice,’ Academy of Management Perspectives, 3: 35-47
Cunningham, I. and Hyman, J., (1999), ‘Devolving human resource responsibilities to the
line: beginning of the end or a new beginning for personnel?’ Personnel Review; 28: 9-27
Currie, G. and Procter, S., (2001), Exploring the relationship between HR and middle
managers. Human Resource Management Journal, 11, 53 – 69.
Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. 2003, ‘How Process Matters: A Five-Phase Model for Examining
Interest-Based Bargaining’, in T. Kochan and D Lipsky (eds), Negotiations and Change:
From Workplace to Society, Ithaca: ILR/Cornell University Press.

Dunlop, J.T., and Zack, A.M., (1997), Mediation and Arbitration of Employment Disputes,
San Francisco: Jossey Bass

Ewing, D.W., (1989), Justice on the Job: Resolving Grievances in the Non-Union Workplace,
Boston Mass., Harvard Business School Press.

Floyd, S. And Wooldridge, B., (2007), Middle Management’s Strategic Influence and
Organizational Performance, Journal of Management Studies, 34: 465-85

Folger, R., and Cropanzano, R., (1998), Organizational Justice and Human Resource
Management, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

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

Hales, C. (2005). ‘Rooted in supervision, branching into management: continuity and

change in the role of first-line manager,’ Journal of Management Studies, 42: 471–506.

Hall, L., and Torrington D., (1998), ‘Letting go or holding on – the devolution of operational
personnel activities,’ Human Resource Management Journal, 8: 41-55

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

Horibe, K, (1999), Managing Knowledge Workers: New Skills and New Attitudes to Unlock
the Intellectual Capital in Your Organization, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

Hutchinson, S. And Purcell, J., (2003), Bringing Policies to Life: the Vital Role of Front-Line
Managers London: CIPD

Kaminski, M. (1999), ‘New Forms of Work Organization and Their Impact on

Organizational Grievance Procedures’, in A. Eaton, J.H. Keefe (eds), Employment Dispute
resolution and Worker Rights in the Changing Workplace, Illinois: Industrial Relations
Research Association.

Lewin, D., (2001) ‘IR and HR Perspectives on Workplace Conflict: What Can Each Learn
From the Other?,’ Human Resource Management Review, 11: 453-485

31
Lewicki, R. J., Weiss, S. E., and Lewin, D., (1992), ‘Models of Conflict, Negotiation and
Third Party Intervention: A Review and Synthesis,’ Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13:
209-252

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: Jossey-Bass

Lipsky, D.B., and Avgar, A.C., (2004), ‘Research on Employment Dispute Resolution:
Toward a New Paradigm’ Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22: 175 - 189

Marchington, M., (2008a), ‘Where next for HRM? Rediscovering the heart and soul of
people management,’ IES Working Paper 20, Brighton: Institute of Employment Studies:
Brighton

Marchington, M. (2008b), 'A Framework for Analysing Employee Voice Systems', in

Boxall, P, Purcell, J and Wright, P., The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource
Management , Oxford University Press

Maxwell, G.A. and Watson, S., (2006), Perspectives on line managers in human resource
management: Hilton International's UK hotels, .International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 17: 152-1170
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004), ‘Employee commitment
and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model,’ Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89: 991-1007

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

Nehles, A.C. Riemsdijk, M. Kok, I. Looise, J.K. (2006), Implementing Human Resource
Management Successfully: A First-Line Management Challenge, Management Revue, 17:
256 – 273

Osterman, P., (2009), The Truth about Middle Managers: Who They Are, Why They Work
and Why the Matter, Cambridge Mass, Harvard Business Press

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 Applied Psychology, 88:5: 879-903.

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

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

Performance, Routledge, London .

32
Renwick, D. (2003), Line manager involvement in HRM: an inside view, Employee
Relations, 25: 262 – 280.

Rouleau, L., (2005), Micro-practices of strategic sense-making and sense-giving; how line
managers interpret and sell change every day, Journal Of Management Studies, 42, 7, 1413-
1443

Rouleau L and Balogun, J., (2007), Exploring Middle Managers, Strategic Sense-Making
Role in Practice, AIM Research Working Paper Series, No 055-March-2007

Rowe, M. P., (2007), ‘Dispute Resolution in the Non-Union Environment: An Evolution

Towards Integrated Systems for Conflict Management?,’ in S. E. Gleason (ed) , Workplace
Dispute Resolution: Directions for the Twenty-First Century. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan
State University Press

Subramony, M., (2009), ‘a Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Relationship Between HRM

Bundles and Firm Performance’, Human Resource Management, 48, 5, 745-68.

Teague, P., 2007, ‘New Employment Times and the Changing Dynamics of Conflict
Management at Work: The Case of Ireland’ Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 28:
62-85

Thornhill A. and Saunders M.N.K. (1998), ‘What if line managers don’t realize they’re
responsible for HR? Lessons from an organization experiencing rapid change,’ Personnel
Review, 27:460-476.

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

Wall, T., and Wood S., (2005), ‘The Romance of HRM and Business Performance and The
Case for Big Science’, Human Relations, Vol. 58: 29-62
Whittaker, S and Marchington, M., (2003), ‘Employee Relations; Delegating HR
responsibility to the line: Threat, opportunity or partnership?, Employee Relations, 25: 245-
261
Wood, S., (1999), ‘Human Resource Management and Performance,’ International Journal
of Management Reviews, 1: 367-413

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 Resource Management, 40:111-123.

Wright, P and Boswell, W. (2002) ‘Desegregating HRM: A Review and Synthesis of Micro
and Macro Human Resource Management Research’, Journal of Management, 28: 247-276

Zack, A. M., (1997), Can Alternative Dispute Resolution Help Resolve Employment
Disputes? International Labour Review, 136: 95-108

33
34
 Table 1 Alternative Dispute Resolution Practices for Conflict Management

Practices for Managing Conflict Practices for Managing Conflict

Involving Individuals Involving Groups

Open Door A procedure that encourages an employee to discuss a problem with Brain-Storming
A process involving groups to employees and management
their supervisor or manager in confidence and without fear of
designed to develop creative solutions to identified problems
Policy retaliation.

A set of techniques and processes that leads to settlements that

Interest-Based
A procedure that offers an employee, who wishes to remain incorporate the interests of all parties. The emphasis is on
Bargaining
Employee Hotlines anonymous, the facility of ringing an advisor to find out the working out differences through dialogue and mutual
available options to solving a problem adjustment. Collaboration and joint action are the by-words of
interest-based negotiations

A designated ‘neutral’ third party inside an organization assigned the Communication

Procedures that provide employees an opportunity to discuss
role of assisting the resolution of a grievance or conflict situation. and Consultation
Ombudsperson matters of significance and proposed plans for the future
The activities of an ombudsman include fact-finding, providing
directions of the organization.
counselling and conciliation between disputing parties.

A process under the stewardship of a third party designed to help

The use by an outside facilitator or mediator of various
those involved in a dispute reach a mutually acceptable settlement.
Assisted strategies such as consensus-building, joint fact-finding and
Mediation The third party has no direct authority in the process and is limited to
Negotiations mediation to assist in reaching settlement, or to prevent
proposing or suggesting options that may open a pathway to a
deadlock in discussions and negotiations within the company
mutually agreeable resolution.

A panel composed of appropriate employees or employees and

managers which listens to the competing arguments in a dispute,
Peer Review External experts help solve internal problems by unlocking
reflects upon the available evidence and proposes a resolution. External Experts
Panels entrenched positions or developing creative solutions.
Whether or not the decision of the panel is binding varies across
organizations.

35
 Sometimes called dispute resolution boards, these panels are solely
Management
composed of managers and have more or less the same remit as peer
Review Boards
reviews. Again the decision of the panel may or may not be final

A neutral third party is empowered to adjudicate in a dispute and set

out a resolution to the conflict. This may or may not be binding
Arbitration
depending upon the prevailing labour legislation and the design of
the arbitration process.

36
 Table 2 Line Managers, Supervisors and Conflict Resolution

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________

% Firms % Employees

____________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________

Strongly Agree Hard to Disagree Strongly Mean* SD* Strongly Agree Hard to Disagree Strongly Mean* SD*

Agree Say Disagree Agree Say Disagree

_____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________

Line managers and supervisors 11.3 38.5 18.5 28.2 3.2 3.3 1.1 12.5 48.3 14.3 23.5 1.4 3.5 1.0

are formally trained to handle

workplace conflict

Line managers and supervisors are 22.7 52.2 9.9 13.7 1.6 3.8 1.0 27.4 52.6 6.7 12.2 1.2 3.9 1.0

required to conduct regular

face-to-face meetings with

employees to gauge areas

of concern to them and resolve

problems

Line managers’ and supervisors’ 11.5 40.5 21.6 22.0 4.3 3.3 1.1 9.2 42.2 26.3 19.1 3.1 3.4 1.0

competence in employee relations

is specifically assessed when

37
their own performance is being appraised

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

% Firms % Employees

____________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________

Strongly Agree Hard to Disagree Strongly Mean* SD* Strongly Agree Hard to Disagree Strongly Mean* SD*

Agree Say Disagree Agree Say Disagree

_____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________

Line managers and supervisors 21.0 54.6 11.4 10.8 2.2 3.8 1.0 17.8 55.1 12.9 13.2 1. 1 3.8 0.9

are specifically and formally

enabled to resolve employee

problems quickly and informally

whenever possible

In practice, line managers and 15.3 33.1 19.9 25.0 6.7 2.8 1.2 16.1 38.8 16.8 23.6 4.7 2.6 1.1

supervisors lack the confidence

to resolve workplace conflict

and rely on HR managers or other

senior managers #

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________

* Means and standard deviations are based on 1-5 value scales, scored from least positive assessment (strongly disagree) = 1 to most positive assessment (strongly agree) = 5.

# The mean and standard deviation for this item are reverse coded for comparability with other items.

38
 Table 3 Line and Supervisory Engagement and Organizational Outcomes: Ordinal Regression Estimates
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Line and Supervisory Management Line and Supervisory Management

Engagement in Conflict Resolution Engagement in Conflict Resolution
X
Alternative Dispute Resolution Practices
3.1 3.2
_____________________________ _________________________________

Level of labour productivity compared with 0.072** -0.014

other companies in industry

Rate of voluntary labour turnover compared 0.025 0.006

with other companies in industry

Rate of absence through sickness or other -0.072** 0.006

causes compared with other companies in
industry

Capacity to handle change compared with other 0.132*** -0.017

companies in industry

Employment relations climate 0.138*** 0.006

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Control variables: sector, company size, union recognition, HRM scale and, ADR practices scale.

*** Significant at the 0.01 level.

** Significant at the 0.05 level.

39
 Figure 1 Path Model of Influences on Line and Supervisory Engagement

Innovation/Quality
Focused Competitive
strategy
-018
.167***
% Skilled or Knowledge -.028
Workers

.256***
Human Resource
e2 Line and Supervisory e1
Management Engagement
.291** 2
2
.226*** R = 0.101
R = 0.112

.095**
Union Containment -.024 Proactive Approach to Conflict
Resolution

2
R = 0.051
e3
= 1.537, df. 4; p = .820

Notes: Path coefficients are standardized. Path coefficients and fit statistics are for trimmed path model shown; path coefficients for 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-based
competitive strategy and % of skilled or knowledge workers (7.15); innovation and quality-based competitive strategy and union containment (-0.24); % of skilled or knowledge workers and union
containment (-4.18).

*** p < 0.01 (one-tailed).

** p < 0.05.

40
 APPENDIX:

Table 1 Factor Analysis of Influences on Approach Adopted by Firms to Conflict Resolution

_________________________________________________________________________

Components

Proactive Conflict Union Containment

Management

1. 2.

Eigenvalues 2.425 1.202

% of Variance Explained 30.307 15.021

_____________________ ______ ______

Responding to the expanding body of legislation 0.58 0.12

providing employees with individual
employment rights.

Adapting work and employment arrangements 0.46 0. 35

to changes needed in response to
competitive pressures

Preventing unions extending their influence 0.25 0.58

into, or within, the company.

Devoting a minimum outlay of time and resources 0.34 0.58

to the handling of
workplace conflict

Developing a less adversarial employment 0.61 -0.24

relations climate

Expediting conflict resolution and/or resolving 0.65 -0.40

conflict in-house

Emulating best practice in conflict resolution 0.66 -0.38

in leading companies.

Responding to growing assertiveness 0.69 0.14

by employees aware of their employment

rights

____________________________________________________________________________

Principal Components Analysis used to extract factors and factor solutions are unrotated.

41
 Notes

1
The original survey extended to all enterprises employing at least 20 employees. However the response rate
among the smallest size category (20-49 employees), at 10 per cent, was deemed to be unsatisfactory and these
cases were excluded from the analysis presented here.
2
We would like to thank Dr Dorothy Watson, Director of the ESRI Survey Unit, for her invaluable contribution
to the design of the sampling strategy and management of the survey fieldwork.
3
For the pilot 179 companies were selected at random for the receipt of the postal questionnaire. 48 companies
responded (48%) following intensive phone follow up contact. 9 responding firms were selected for telephone
feedback on the questionnaire. The pilot and follow-up interviews confirmed that respondents in general found
the survey interesting and even thought provoking. The feedback interviews prompted amendments mainly to
the manner in which respondents in the small minority of companies that operated different or separate
approaches to conflict resolution were advised to answer in respect of their largest subsidiary workplace or
category. Attempted follow-up interviews with non respondents were unsuccessful.
4
However, the risk here was not perceived as a major concern by the focus groups. Nor did non-response
due to negative perceptions of workplace conflict or conflict management emerge as a major concern in
feedback on the pilot survey.

5
The weighting procedure adopted by the ESRI Survey Unit involved grossing sample firms to the numbers in
their respective size ranges and sectors in the survey population, and also usefully allowed sample data to be
adjusted in the same way to provide estimates of the numbers of employees who work in firms with features
reported in the survey. Full technical details of the sampling strategy, response rates and weighting procedures
are available on request from the authors.
6
The so-called ‘time-trend extrapolation test’ procedure (Armstrong and Overton 1977) was followed by
comparing the pattern of responses on critical variables for early and late survey respondents. The assumption
behind this test is that late respondents are closest to the profile of non-respondents. T tests for differences in
scale means provided no evidence that systematic non-response bias was a significant problem affecting the
results. Specific results, which can be read in conjunction with the discussion in the results section, were as
follows. T tests for differences in scale means between early and late respondent groups: line management
engagement scale, t = -8.14, p = 0.416; HRM scale, t =0.608, p = 0.544; proactive conflict management scale, t
= 0.902, p = 0.368; union containment/avoidance scale, t = 0.406, p = 0.685; individual ADR scale, t = 1.808, p
= 0.071; group ADR scale, t = -0.206, p = 0.837; quality/innovation focused competitive posture scale, t =
1.839, p = 0.670; employment relations climate scale, t = 0.215, t = 0.830; scale of level of labour productivity
compared with other companies in industry, t = -0.276, p = 0.782; scale of rate of voluntary labour turnover
compared with other companies in industry, t = -2.055, p = 0.04; scale of rate of absence through sickness or
orther causes compared with other companies in industry, t = 0.020, p = 0.984, scale of capacity to handle
change compared with other companies in industry, t = -0.653, p = 0.514.
7
Before presenting the results of statistical testing, a number of remarks can be made in the light of reviews of
common-method variance in the literature. First, common-method variance seems most likely to pose problems
where multiple scales using self-reports provide measures of variables or latent variables (Podsakoff et al. 2003;
Spector 2006). In the present analysis, the managers most knowledgeable about how conflict is managed in
firms were asked to assess line managers’ handling of workplace conflict, rather than line managers themselves
being asked to assess their own behaviour or associated outcomes. Second, in line with Spector’s contention
(2006: 227-9) that different item formats in a questionnaire can be considered different methods and that factual
information might be relatively impervious to most biases, a number of item formats, with different scale
anchors, including some reverse-scored items, were employed in the questionnaire, as well as a series of
questions as to the existence or otherwise of various conflict management and HRM practices. Third, through
the use of focus groups, intensive interviews, pre-piloting and piloting we devoted a great deal of care to the
wording of questions, again reducing error attributable to the manner in which items are specified. Finally,
target respondents seemed well capable of validly portraying influences on approaches to conflict management
and to reporting a series of firm-level outcomes relative to their industries, without any ostensible motive for

42
patterns of response involving common-method variance These features of the survey, taken together, reduce
the danger of common-method variance. In addition to these features of the survey focused on minimizing
common method variance, a series of statistical tests were conducted to determine whether common method
variance represented a significant problem . First, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted, supplemented by
confirmatory factor analysis (Podsacoff et al. 2003). Harman’s test involves undertaking exploratory factor
analysis on key research variables. Where one (unrotated) general factor is extracted, or where one extracted
factor is found to account for most of the variance in the variables included, this can be regarded as indicative of
significant common-method variance. Harman’s test was conducted on various sets of variables used in the
analysis conducted in the paper. First, all variables included in the analyses undertaken in the paper were entered
into exploratory factor analysis. This analysis of 22 variables extracted 7 factors, and the factor with the highest
Eigenvalue accounted for 15.9 per cent of the variance in the variables included. Confirmatory factor analysis
2
on the same variables indicated that a common-factor model failed to fit the data ( = 860.667; df. = 209; p =
0.000). As more than one factor might be expected with such a large set of variables, a more focused
examination of sets of variables in scales used in different regressions reported in the paper was also undertaken.
Here we report on the theoretically most pertinent of these. Reflecting the analysis of influences on ‘line
management engagement’, factor analysis was conducted on the scale items measuring influences on
approaches to conflict resolution combined with scale items in the line management engagement scale. This
produced 4 factors, and the factor with the highest Eigenvalue accounted for 22.1 per cent of the variance in the
variables included. Confirmatory factor analysis was also conducted on three latent variable models,
incorporating manifest variables that loaded on the line and supervisory engagement, union avoidance and
proactive approach to conflict resolution latent variables. A Chi-square difference test of an unconstrained
model compared with a nested model in which the covariances of the three latent variables were constained to
2
be perfectly correlated (equivalent to a common latent factor) produced a = 282.099; df = 3; p = 0.000,
suggesting that the three-factor structure is not redundant, or that a common method factor better accounts for
the patterning in the data than the three latent variables used in the analysis in the paper . Finally exploratory
factor analysis was conducted on the scale items measuring line management engagement combined with the
single Likert-scale items measuring firm outcomes of different kinds. This produced 3 factors, and the factor
with the highest Eigenvalue accounted for 27.1 per cent of the variance in the variables included. To use
confirmatory factor analysis to test for common method variance between the line and supervisory engagement
and the outcome variables, the latter were allowed load on a generic outcomes latent variable whose parameters
were estimated in a measurement model that also included the manifest variable indicators of the line and
supervisory engagement scale. A Chi-square difference test of an unconstrained model compared with a nested
model in which the covariances of the two latent variables were again constained to be perfectly correlated
2
resulted in an = 202.088; df = 1; p = 0.000, pointing against a serious problem of common method
variance.

The second series of tests involved undertaking partial correlation analysis to determine whether controlling for
a common factor significantly attenuated correlations between relevant independent and dependent variables
(Podsacoff et al. 2003). Our focus here was on examining correlations between the line and supervisory
engagement scale and each of the outcome variables examined in the paper, controlling for a common method
factor comprising all the main variables and scales used in the analysis (first principle component) other than
line and supervisory engagement scale and the outcomes variables. Partial correlations using a common method
factor as a control might attenuate part of the actual covariance between variables as well as partialling out any
correlation due to common method bias (Podsacoff et al. 2003: 890). Thus we employ as a control a common
method factor based on all other major research variables, the assumption being that any common method bias
shared between the line and supervisory engagement scale and each of the outcome variables will be captured
by the common method factor. The partial correlations reveal that none of the zero-order associations between
line and supervisory engagement scale and the outcome variables, with the exception of a correlation with
voluntary labour turnover, are reduced substantially or rendered statistically insignificant.

43
 In a third and final series of tests, the ordinal regressions of each of the outcome variables on the line and
supervisory scale, reported in the paper, were conducted with the common-method factor variable, constructed
as just described, included among the set of control variables. The statistical significance of none of the
coefficients on the line and supervisory engagement variables is affected by the inclusion of the common-
method factor control variable.

8
The means of 1-5 scales scored from the least positive (strongly disagree) to most positive (strongly agree)
assessments bear out the pattern of results that has been reported with respect to the different aspects of line
managers’ and supervisors’ behaviour covered. The lowest scale means are found with respect to assessments of
line managers’ and supervisors’ confidence in resolving workplace conflict without reliance on other managers,
both in respect of the results weighted to represent the population of firms and the proportions of employees
working in firms with the reported response profiles. In each case the average assessment of line managers and
supervisors’ confidence with respect to independently resolving workplace conflict falls between the non-
committal (hard to say) and mildly negative (disagree) options presented. The means of all other items point to
moderately positive assessments of line management activity.

9
Latent class factor models applied to the 11 items to determine whether distinct underlying dimensions of
HRM were identifiable, failed to attain statistical fit, and it seemed prudent therefore to regard the scale as uni-
dimensional.
10
Respondents were asked to assign points to represent the weighting their firms were seen to attribute to
competing on the basis of innovation and of quality relative to cost, where 100 points was pre-assigned by us to
competing on the basis of cost. So respondents who viewed competing on the basis of innovation to be twice as
important for their organizations 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 cost would assign 50 points to this aspect
of competition and so on. A scale measuring the degree to which firms, as seen by respondents, pursued
competitive postures emphasizing innovation and quality was then constructed by deriving the first principal
component scores of the points assigned to competing on the basis of innovation and quality relative to cost.

44