Human Resources Negotiation - The Relationship Between Employee Voice, Intention to Quit, and Conflict Resolution
In this blog, we are going to analyze how organizations can reduce workers' intentions to quit via 2 negotiation methods with employees - giving employees a voice in the organization and resolving conflicts strategically. Obviously the next question that HRs might ask is how much of a voice should we give employees without derailing the organization? We will answer this question in upcoming blogs, but we will first look at how these 2 negotiation methods are interconnected with organization retention rates.
To back up our claims to the above, we have analyzed a landmark Australian study done by Van Gramberg et. al (2019) in the HR field - this study shows clearly how intentions to quit amongst workers can be influenced by employee voice and conflict resolution strategies by the organization.
In addition, this study provides new perspectives on employee voice and its connection to an individual's intention to quit after a conflict situation. By surveying employees in Australia, the authors attempt to answer two questions: What is the relationship between employee voice and conflict resolution? Does the type of conflict affect these relationships?
The findings are profound in that they suggest organizations should air on the side of giving employees more freedom to voice out their concerns, as this gives them a channel to vent out frustrations. In particular, voice was found to have 2 beneficial effects - 1. employee voice has a direct negative effect on intentions to quit, meaning workers are less likely to quit if they are given a platform to voice out; 2. voice has a direct positive effect on the resolution of the dispute, meaning disputes are more likely to be resolved by giving employees a voice.
In previous blogs, we have covered negotiation skills involved in resolving workplace disputes, such as active listening and assertiveness, understanding every side's interests and creating value in the negotiation. However, based on this study, simply listening and facilitating disputes are not enough. Instead, employees must be given a channel to voice out spontaneously and more importantly, they must feel that they are welcomed to voice out.
Voicing out is actually one of the most overlooked negotiation tactics. Let's take a democracy as an example. Every couple of years, a leader is chosen based on the highest number of votes received, and the minority who did not cast a supporting vote to the chosen leader must accept the results. In essence, this is a compromise, or in other words, a basic negotiation process in which one of more groups of people give up something they desire in the hope for something more favorable. In a democracy, the minority gives up their leader of choice in the hope for a peaceful transfer of political power, which has umpteen benefits for the long term development of a country. The key to why democracy works, or in other words, why the minority willingly compromises and unifies with the majority behind a chosen leader is because they were given a chance to voice out.
Within the context of an organization, for all parties to reach a comprimise, it is of vital importance that all parties involved feel that they are given a fair chance to voice out, so that any comprimises reached will be upheld. HRs and managers often fall into the trap of overusing their power to dictate the outcome of workplace disputes, which can lead to begrudging agreements to a dispute settlement. Worse of all, employees who feel treated unfairly don't usually voice out spontaneously, even if given the chance to do so, since they feel that their opinions are not heard. This often leads to resignations in the end, with HRs and managers struggling to put a finger on why. HRs and managers must understand that giving employees a channel to voice out is a long term negotiation tactic - it forces all employees to psychologically recognize that they are given ample, fair opportunities to raise out any views or concerns, which increases the chances of a positive dispute settlement, such that the terms of which will be upheld by all parties involved.
Returning to the findings of the study, It has been concluded that conflict resolution in the workplace through the use of employee voice significantly increases the likelihood that employees will not form an intention to quit. This builds on earlier research showing that conflict resolution is important, not only because employees are more likely to find the outcome fairer because of their own participation, but also because they are more likely to remain with the organization.
It is hence important for organizations to work on a sustainable mechanism that encourages or even remunerates employees who constructively voice out their views and provide feedback. For example, the CIPD emphasizes a balance between "individual self-representation" and "collective representation". The former includes one-to-one meetings with a line manager and employee surveys, while the latter includes trade unions and an employee representative on the company board as forms of employee voice. Similar to our viewpoint, the CIPD also expressed that "more needs to be done to expand and enhance employee voice so that more individuals feel confident in using their voice at work", adding that people in lower positions within an organization are generally more reserved in voicing out due to possible negative reactions from higher up. This poses a major problem as people within lower positions are often ones charged with the execution of decisions made at the top - without incentives to voice out, these people at the lower end of the hierarchy may face motivational struggles to execute properly, potentially derailing organization goals.
This goes back to a problem of what I call "the problematic nature of power struggles within organizations" - power is often concentrated at the top, while power is virtually non existent at the lower ends of an organization hierarchy. In a negotiation where a party yields excessive power, it is human nature to tend to overlook the needs and wants of the significantly weaker party, since the latter has virtually no influence. On the other hand, the weaker party will often be on a heightened sense of neglectment from the organization due to the exact same tendency. This leads to disengagement from employees at the lower end, returning back to a problem posed earlier in the blog where comprimised outcomes in organizations may not be upheld.
Resolving employees' perception of having little to no power in negotiations hence becomes key. It is not in an organization's interest to hire employees who only say "yes" to every order, but may privately disagree. To resolve this issue, organizations should focus on creating an "employee voice mechanism" that allows employees to perceive that they have some say in the organization, regardless of position and title. This will enhance the employee's perception of negotiation power during feedback session and dispute resolutions, encouraing employees to speak their minds. CIPD suggests a few ways to build such a mechanism, which includes the development and implementation of a speak-up, whistleblowing policy, employee invitations in reviews of voice policies, procedures and methods, visible demonstrations of senior manager support for inclusive employee voice, as well as the generation of an organisational culture where employees feel psychologically safe in speaking up and expressing their voices.
Personally, however, I feel that a policy encouraging employee voice is futile without any measurable rewards for employees - why would employees voice out if they cannot visibly be benefitted from doing so? Humans will naturally help out others out of good faith, but it is unrealistic to assume that every employee is a samaritan. A very simple way to award employees is bonuses - who wouldn't want to become more proactive if they are sufficiently compensated monetarily?
A few creative ways in monetarily rewarding employees who voice out can include: 1. Cash bonuses and holiday incentives for employees who voice out the most frequently (perhaps via a "tracking system" that tracks the number of feedback or suggestions put forward formally by each employee) and have their suggestions accepted by a majority of the workplace 2. Free meals for employees who show the most engagement in responding to feedback and other voices raised out by their colleagues 3. Additonal cash bonuses for employees who are willing to set aside extra time to work and execute on employee suggestions accepted by the majority of an organization
Despite this, however well a feedback system or a conflict resolution system may be constructed, it still takes an awful lot of humans to run these systems and those with poor negotiation and communication skills can still leave employees frustrated, and worse still, with a desire to leave the organization. Here are final few tips for HRs and managers to bear in mind when encouraging employee voice outs and resolving workplace conflicts:
1. Focus on building trust between managers, HR and employees. It’s difficult for employees to speak out about issues when they feel there is an imbalance of power in the workplace. Improved communication can help increase trust between employees, managers and HR.
2. Develop policies that encourage open communication and provide guidelines on how conflicts should be resolved. Employees should feel comfortable coming forward with concerns without fear of retribution.
3. Ensure all employees are aware of the organisation’s procedures for reporting conflict and raising concerns. Employees need to feel confident that their concerns will be heard without reprisal.
4. Provide regular communication and negotiation training for managers on how to resolve conflicts in the workplace. This will help ensure that conflicts are dealt with effectively and fairly, without further damaging employee morale or productivity.
Lastly, remember to focus on negotiation and power imbalances within the workplace - a power structure that overly favours decision makers at the top will never give rise to a happy workplace!
