Management-Based CMS

ADR proponents usually term the devel­opment of management-based CMS as a Copernican revolution in conflict manage­ment because instead of negatively framing organizational conflict as a destructive force to be eliminated, conflict becomes a positive, active “means through which groups define the terms of their interactions and adapt to changing conditions” (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003, p.

Second, in lieu of narrowly defining conflict in terms of zero-sum gain disputes, manage­ment-based CMS use a range of interest-based policies and procedures that at face value emphasize mutual gain by all parties involved (Caverley, Cunningham, & Mitchell, 2005). Third, management-based CMS have been touted as fostering more democratic work­places since ADR strategies attend to voice and give participants more control over the outcome of the conflict.

ADR cynics, on the other hand, have described some management-based procedures as a more nuanced “human resource strategy” (Mahony & Klaas, 2008, p. 259) that serves management’s rather than employees’ interests in two ways. First, hot lines, suggestion boxes, managerial mediation, open-door policies, and the use of organizational ombuds or employee assistance programs alert managers to prob­lems before they mushroom into full-blown conflicts. Folger and Cropanzano (1998) dis­cussed how skilled mediators can then use ref­erential accounts to play down organizational members’ claims by comparing their experi­ences with others who are worse off.

Additionally, unless the organizational cul­ture cultivates the expression of dissent, orga­nizations may view complaints as a form of protest (Harlos, 2010). Articulating a com­plaint may escalate the conflict and lead to negative consequences such as poor perfor­mance ratings or fewer chances of promotion (Colvin, 2003). Despite a long-standing orga­nizational open-door tradition, Le Flanchec and Rojot’s (2009) survey of French IBM employees found that only 12% had used la porte ouverte (the open door). Employees’ reluctance stemmed from fear that using the open door would be poorly perceived by man­agement and thus slow their career progres­sion. In such cases, policies function “so that employees and managers voluntarily conduct themselves in the way management would like them to with a minimum of surveillance or coercion, but backed up by the twin threats of discipline or social disapproval” (Gadlin, 2005, p. 371).

Other management-based strategies such as external mediation with trained neutrals seem to resolve the problems of managerial bias and organizational inaction, as has been the case at the USPS. However, in the majority of cases, neither procedures nor outcomes can be publicly scrutinized due to strict confiden­tiality clauses. Adhesive binding mediation, for example, leads to confidential awards that preclude class action (Bingham, 2008). Moreover, in contrast to litigation, which both takes into account the past and creates future precedents, the individualized, organization­ally contained nature of management-based strategies results in a lack of consistency across cases.

Mediation used within a management­based system only works when both parties want to find points of commonality. Walker and Hamilton’s (2011) study of the use of external, legally binding mediation to address grievance cases is illustrative. Walker and Hamilton focused on the process and out­come of 14 cases, using real-time data from interviews, direct observation, and analysis of premediation written submissions from employees, employers, and mediators. Even employees who “won” felt that their employ­ment was not secure. Some of these employ­ees left several months later due to a loss of workplace trust. In contrast to employees that company representatives forcibly “encour­aged” to leave during the mediation process through monetary payouts, the employees who exited postmediation received no finan­cial compensation.

The lesson here is that orientation to conflict management determines the ways in which strategies are used. Management-based con­flict systems ultimately serve the goals of the organization, even when this negatively affects the individuals involved. CMS oriented toward management goals, and implemented by man­agement in organizations, tend to operate with a top-down view and may only use consulta­tive or relationship-based methods when these are seen to benefit the organization.