This paper examines a workplace conflict scenario involving a Human Resources Manager and an Islamic Australian employee who believes he was passed over for a Factory Manager position due to religious and racial discrimination by the Operations Manager. Drawing on group behavior theory and conflict resolution principles, the paper establishes the psychological and cultural foundations of workplace conflict, presents both the HR and employee perspectives in detail, and then develops a structured dialogue representing how a formal conflict resolution meeting might proceed. The scenario illustrates real-world tensions between objective hiring criteria and perceived discriminatory conduct, and demonstrates how a win-win communication framework can be applied to resolve workplace disputes while respecting legal obligations under anti-discrimination law.
One of the things that makes us human is our need and ability to form groups. We thrive in groups, merge into groups, and even the process of civilization — moving from hunter-gatherers to cities — was part of group behavior. However, when groups form, any number of interesting psychological issues occur: behaviors change, organizational tensions emerge, bonds and alliances are formed and lost, and even individual leadership behaviors change (Johnson and Johnson, 2008). Whether involving individuals, small groups, or large organizations, behavioral issues sometimes arise that cause conflict. Breaking one or more of a group's norms, or disagreeing with them to the point where it becomes unbearable or makes the group ineffective, becomes "conflictual" (Corey, 2008, pp. 149–51).
This type of conflict occurs in most cultures at one time or another. We see it in animal behavior as internal aggression. In some human cultures, while the need for a win-win outcome is important, cultural barriers prevent individuals from directly confronting one another in order to identify the actual problem. Taken to the extreme, conflict may manifest as disputes between nations, or even war. Because conflict is so culturally based, there are no universal methods for its resolution. Much depends on the situation, its chronology, the participants involved, and the psychology of the parties. In Western nations, however, conflict resolution typically involves some form of communication process and problem solving. Within the workplace, conflict may arise because of misperceptions, misunderstandings, or simply a lack of appropriate and cogent communication.
This case study involves two parties: a Human Resources Manager and an employee. The conflict centers on an open position for a Factory Manager that was filled by an external candidate rather than an internal one. The following sections present each party's perspective before moving to the resolution dialogue.
A new position of Factory Manager was created, advertised, and opened to both internal and external applicants. Approximately one hundred applications were received, from which ten candidates were shortlisted for interview. Only one of those ten was a current member of staff. A set of ten selection criteria was developed for the interview process, and the interviews were conducted by the HR Manager and the Operations Manager, who would serve as the direct supervisor of the new hire.
The HR Manager was extremely pleased with the quality of three candidates, any one of whom would have been a strong appointment. One of those three was the current staff member, who had been with the company for ten years and had a completely unblemished record. He is very conscientious and efficient. Unfortunately, he does not possess the same level of communication skills or breadth of experience as the successful candidate. The HR Manager and Operations Manager agreed that the best candidate was an external applicant who had been managing a large factory producing for an export market for five years. He is a mechanical engineer who has also completed a one-year Postgraduate Diploma of Management.
The HR Manager had been dreading the moment of delivering the news. Knowing that the internal employee had been aspiring to a promotional position for several years — and had been studying an online Business Administration degree to prepare for management roles — the HR Manager chose to deliver the news face-to-face, taking the employee to lunch to do so as respectfully and tactfully as possible. The meeting did not go well. The employee reacted very angrily and left the restaurant, stating: "If you think this is the end of this, you are very much mistaken."
The HR Manager subsequently received a formal letter from the employee demanding a review of the decision and threatening legal action under the Anti-Discrimination Act. The employee stated his conviction that the Operations Manager is racially prejudiced and never had any genuine intention of employing an Islamic Australian.
"Employee's claim of racial and religious bias"
"Scripted meeting between HR and employee"
You’re 39% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.