Saundry’s proposal—though well-intentioned and progressive—does not address the system's core constraint, and as a result, cannot reliably or sustainably solve the issue of workplace conflict.
Let me explain this step-by-step through a TOC lens using these principles:
🧠 TOC’s Core Diagnostic Question: What is the System's Constraint?
In TOC, we ask:
What is the core limiting factor (constraint) that prevents the system from achieving more of its goal?
The goal here is a productive, fair, and engaged workforce with minimal destructive conflict.
Saundry’s paper identifies symptoms:
-
Conflict is mishandled
-
Formal processes are overused
-
Managerial skill gaps
-
HR’s detachment
-
Cultural avoidance
But TOC would push deeper: What actually constrains early resolution of conflict?
❌ 1. Mistaking Symptoms for the Constraint
Saundry treats line manager skill gaps and overuse of formal processes as root causes. From TOC’s view, these are UDEs (Undesirable Effects), not the constraint.
TOC asks: Why don't managers already resolve conflict informally, even when they have training and tools?
This leads us to suspect the core constraint is fear-based accountability:
Managers are held personally responsible for procedural errors but not rewarded for informal resolution success.
So:
-
Managers avoid informal action not due to ignorance, but due to perceived personal risk and system ambiguity.
-
Formal procedures feel "safe" because they shift responsibility to HR and the policy.
This is a classic local optima problem, where individuals protect themselves from downside at the expense of system-wide performance.
🧩 2. No Clear Injection to Break the Constraint
Saundry recommends:
-
Training
-
Cultural change
-
Encouraging informal resolution
-
Repositioning HR
These are all necessary conditions, but not sufficient to break the constraint.
TOC would demand a precise injection that:
-
Shifts the manager’s perceived risk-reward balance
-
Makes early informal resolution the safest and most rewarded path, not the most dangerous
Without this, training alone won’t be used. Cultural encouragement won’t override fear of blame. HR support will remain reactive.
🔁 3. Circular Reasoning and Implementation Trap
Saundry’s model runs into a TOC implementation trap:
“We’ll change the system once the culture changes.”
“The culture will change once the system supports new behavior.”
This is circular.
TOC breaks this loop with a Decisive Cause—an intervention that makes the desirable behavior easier and safer than the old behavior, regardless of the culture.
🧱 4. Failure to Identify the Core Conflict (Evaporating Cloud)
Here’s the actual Evaporating Cloud (Conflict) at the heart of the issue:
| Element | Content |
|---|---|
| A – Goal | Resolve workplace issues fairly, quickly, and constructively |
| B – Need | Ensure procedural safety to protect the organization and the manager |
| C – Need | Resolve conflict early and informally to minimize damage |
| D – Action | Follow formal procedures (safe, but slow and rigid) |
| D′ – Conflicting Action | Use informal dialogue and early resolution (better outcomes, but riskier for the manager) |
Saundry wants to shift the system toward D′, but doesn’t resolve the B vs. C conflict—he assumes training and culture change will overcome the fear.
TOC says: Assumptions must be surfaced and challenged, or they remain the hidden reason the system won’t shift.
✅ TOC-Inspired Injection
To truly break the constraint, TOC would propose an injection like:
Create a protected "conflict triage" process, where early informal resolution attempts are documented and explicitly shielded from blame, evaluated, and supported by HR as legitimate conflict management.
In this system:
-
Managers are not penalized for informal attempts unless there's misconduct.
-
HR co-owns the outcome rather than retroactively reviewing it.
-
Success metrics shift to include "conflict resolution rate before formal escalation."
This removes the fear, aligns incentives, and creates a safe learning loop.
🔄 5. No Performance Feedback Loop in the Proposal
Saundry offers broad direction, but there’s no system for:
-
Measuring conflict resolution attempts
-
Tracking escalation decisions
-
Learning what works
-
Reinforcing best practice
TOC insists every injection must create positive feedback loops:
-
Managers resolve early → get support → get recognized → repeat behavior
-
Teams experience success → trust grows → escalate less → morale rises
Without this loop, the system will revert to the formal procedure default under stress.
📌 Summary: Why Saundry's Approach Won’t Solve the Problem (TOC View)
| Issue | TOC Critique |
|---|---|
| Misidentifies constraint | Treats manager skill gap as core problem; TOC sees fear of blame and lack of system support as deeper root |
| No injection to break conflict | Suggests training and culture change, but doesn't dissolve the D vs. D′ conflict |
| No mechanism change | Lacks structural shift that makes informal action safer than formal |
| Circular reasoning | Relies on culture to drive system change, and vice versa |
| No feedback system | No performance loop to drive learning or sustain new behavior |
🧠 Final Thought
TOC teaches us that people don’t resist change—they resist conflict and loss.
Managers aren’t opposed to resolution—they’re protecting themselves from uncertainty.
Until the system removes that penalty, no amount of training will change behavior.
Appendix:
Richard Saundry's (Professor in Human Resource Management (HRM) and Employment Relations at Sheffield University Management School Faculty of Social Sciences.) 2019 discussion paper, "Fairness, justice and capability - repositioning conflict management," published by Acas (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service), advocates for a fundamental shift in how workplace conflict is approached and managed in the UK.
Here's a summary of its core arguments and findings:
Central Argument: Moving Beyond Formal Procedures
The paper argues that the traditional, highly formalized, and often legalistic approach to managing workplace conflict (e.g., through rigid disciplinary and grievance procedures) is often counterproductive. It emphasizes the need to move away from a compliance-driven mindset towards a more person-centred, informal, and early resolution approach.
Key Concepts and Findings:
- The Cost of Conflict: Saundry highlights the significant economic and human costs of poorly managed workplace conflict. Conflict not only leads to formal processes (tribunals, grievances) but also to lost productivity, employee disengagement, stress, and a damaged organizational culture.
- Emphasis on Early and Informal Resolution: The paper champions the idea that conflicts should be addressed as early as possible, using informal methods like mediation, facilitated conversations, and constructive dialogue, rather than letting them escalate to formal procedures.
- Role of Line Managers and Their Capability: A crucial finding is that line managers often lack the skills, confidence, and support to effectively handle conflicts informally at an early stage. This lack of "conflict capability" at the frontline encourages a reliance on formal, procedural responses. The paper argues that investing in training and developing line managers' skills in communication, negotiation, and difficult conversations is paramount.
- Fairness and Justice Beyond Process: Saundry suggests that true fairness and justice in conflict resolution extend beyond merely following a procedure. It involves ensuring that outcomes are perceived as just, that individuals feel heard, and that relationships are maintained where possible. The focus should be on resolution rather than just process compliance.
- The "Capability" Imperative: The paper introduces the concept of organizational "capability" in conflict management. This refers to the systemic ability of an organization to prevent, identify, and resolve conflicts effectively, rather than just reacting to them. This involves not only managerial skills but also supportive HR structures and a culture that encourages open dialogue and problem-solving.
- Impact of HR Structures: The paper, drawing on Saundry's wider research, also touches on how the evolution of HR functions (e.g., towards more remote or specialized models) can sometimes inadvertently contribute to the reliance on formal procedures by reducing the "proximity" and relational trust between HR, line managers, and employees.
- Shifting from Blame to Systems: It implicitly suggests a move away from individual blame in conflict situations towards identifying and addressing systemic issues that contribute to conflict.
Implications and Recommendations:
While a discussion paper, the implications are clear:
- Invest in Line Manager Training: Organizations should prioritize training programs for line managers focused on conflict resolution, communication, and interpersonal skills.
- Promote Informal Approaches: Encourage and embed practices like mediation, coaching, and facilitated conversations as the primary means of conflict resolution.
- Re-evaluate HR's Role: HR functions should consider how they can better support early and informal resolution, potentially by increasing their "proximity" and collaborative engagement with line managers and employees.
- Cultural Shift: Foster a workplace culture that encourages open communication, psychological safety, and a proactive approach to addressing disagreements, rather than suppressing them until they erupt formally.
- Policy Influence: The paper has influenced Acas's strategy and government thinking on dispute resolution, emphasizing early intervention and building organizational capability.
In essence, Saundry's paper calls for a more pragmatic, human-centered, and preventative approach to workplace conflict, moving away from a costly and often ineffective reliance on formal disciplinary and grievance procedures, by building the "capability" of managers and organizations to resolve issues at their root.
發表文章
