Managing neutrality and impartiality in workplace conflict resolution: The dilemma of the HR manager

Abstract

IntroductionThe interaction between conflict management and ethics in organisations occurs in a web of power relations, organisational structures and the often conflicting objectives of organisational competitiveness and workplace justice. Human resource management (HRM) policies and practices have been pivotal in managing this interface. Key to the role of the HR manager is the management of conflict and delivery of justice in workplace decision making. We argue that ethical decision making to resolve conflict is challenged by the inherent nature of HRM. First, we note that in an environment driven by the need for efficiency, the HR manager is expected to perform a range of roles, particularly that of 'strategic partner' which can be at odds with its 'employee champion' role. Second, as someone who represents the firm, the HR manager cannot be considered a neutral mediator of conflicts between other workplace members. These tensions in the HR manager's role raise ethical questions that arise in the course of negotiation and dispute resolution. We commence with a discussion of workplace justice and the concepts of neutrality and impartiality. We argue while pursuing neutrality might have a shorter term goal of supporting managerial or organisational objectives, longer term goals, particularly those which enhance workplace justice, are likely to be afforded through the exercise of impartiality informed by an ethical code.

Pro‐active neutrality: The key to understanding creative facilitation

“…It was present throughout the workshops, through behaviors like giving people turns and actively encouraging the quieter (“weaker”) ones to speak (e.g., by asking the participants to present their ideas one by one). This is consistent with the literature, which refers to such approach in the mediation practice (Cohen et al, 1999; Van Gramberg & Teicher, 2006); however, once again we observed additional interdependencies beyond prior descriptions. As exemplified in the previous paragraph, both impartiality and equidistance were observed during the workshops, even though they contradict each other in theoretical terms: the first one is based on complete lack of judgment, while the latter assumes assessing information (which involves judgment) in order to create symmetry in the process.…”

An Enlightened Environment? Workplace Bullying and Incivility in Irish Higher Education

“…No investigations of adverse behavior occurred, which resulted in a reprimand for unreasonable behaviors, and as such no instruction for curbing adverse behavior was given. HR, while expected on one hand to implement a policy that protects staff from bullying each other are also expected to be the strategic partner of management and therefore cannot be a neutral mediator of conflicts between workers and management (Van Gramberg & Teicher, 2006). HR is not impartial (Klein & Martin, 2011;Keashly, 2010).…”

Human Resource Managers' Role Perception and Their Conflict Management Style

“…They must also be knowledgeable in legislative matters pertaining to labor law and must be capable of managing and resolving disputes and lawsuits that are related to employee rights (Van Gramberg & Teicher, 2005).Studies indicate that in practice, in many organizations, there is a wide gap between the definition of a HR Manager as a strategic partner and their status in reality. In reality, most HR Managers consider themselves as operational by nature and act in accordance with the organization's needs and requirements (Molineux, 2013).…”