3

A Theory of Workplace Conflict

Development: From Grievances
to Strikes
Robert Hebdon and Sung Chul Noh

Introduction

Relatively little is known about the complex inter-relationships between

the various expressions of workplace conflict. This is an important topic
because a full understanding is necessary for successful dispute resolu-
tion, to predict future developments such as form or method displace-
ment, and perhaps most significantly, to develop conflict theory. Thus,
a key purpose of this chapter is to build theory by examining the rela-
tionship between expressions of conflict. Conflict at work (or workplace
conflict) has been broadly defined to include such forms as absentee-
ism, theft, sabotage, turnover, grievances, job actions and strikes. The
most studied expressions are undoubtedly grievances and strikes but we
know very little about their inter-relationship. Are they complemen-
tary or competitive? Are they alternatives or substitutes? The literature
provides only anecdotal evidence of their relationship and no theory.
Consequently, this chapter develops and tests, at least in an introduc-
tory fashion, a theory of workplace conflict that will provide hypotheses
about expression relationships. To date scholars from various disciplines
have conducted conceptual and empirical studies to address whether,
and how, conflict can be managed or resolved (see, for example, De Dreu
2008, Jehn 1997, Morill et al. 2003, Wheeler 1985). But to address these
issues, enquiries must be conducted into the nature of workplace con-
flict and its dynamics. To better understand these latter two issues, it is
necessary to consider the literatures on workplace conflict from several
disciplines and then integrate their findings into a comprehensive
theory (Bendersky 2003, Feuille and Wheeler 1981).
Much of the organizational behaviour literature has addressed behav-
iours that could be considered workplace conflict at the individual

26
G. Gall (ed.), New Forms and Expressions of Conflict at Work
© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2013
 Robert Hebdon and Sung Chul Noh 27

level: absenteeism, turnover, grievance and misbehaviours. However,

it has been criticized for overlooking the nature of conflict embedded in
the broader context of employment relations (Fortado 2001, Meyerson
1998). The bias inherent in this approach has led organizational behav-
iour scholars away from considering structural and macro-level factors
surrounding workplace conflict, basing concepts of absenteeism and
turnover, for example, on the notion of the individual as autonomous
and acultural. In contrast, theorists in industrial relations link the sources
and manifestations of workplace conflict to broader socio-political struc-
tures, viewing them as something fundamental to the employment rela-
tionship in a capitalist economy (Godard 2011). For example, Hyman
(1972) pointed out such underlying sources of conflict in capitalist
labour relations as asymmetrical power relationships and managerial
control over the labour process. However, most scholars in industrial
relations have tended to be preoccupied with more visible and com-
bative expressions of conflict between labour and management such as
strikes. Consequently, this singular focus has caused some scholars to
misinterpret the decline in strike rates as evidence of the lack of work-
place conflict (Gall and Hebdon 2008).
Overall, this narrowness of focus found in both organizational behav-
iour and industrial relations has limited researchers’ understanding
of the dynamics of conflict expressions in the workplace due to the
lack of multi- and cross-level studies in the field (Barbash 1980). This
chapter argues that workplace conflict should inherently be thought
of as a phenomenon for which individual motivation, working condi-
tions and labour-management relations combine to shape its dynamic
character within an organization. Consequently, this chapter aims to
contribute to the stream of research on workplace conflict by taking a
holistic approach in which psychological (organizational behaviour),
technological-structural (HRM), and socio-political (i.e. industriaI rela-
tions) perspectives are brought to bear. It focuses more upon industriaI
relations workplace conflict between employees and management, and
not upon organizational behaviour interpersonal conflict. In particular,
our interest lies in the process by which workplace conflict develops
from individual expressions into its most advanced forms, job actions
and strikes. By doing so, our chapter extends existing theories on work-
place conflict in several ways. First, while many industrial relations
scholars have defined industrial conflict as a collective phenomenon
and analysed it at the level of collective action (Edwards 1986, Wheeler
1985), we highlight the role of individual and covert forms of workplace
conflict acting as a preliminary and latent form of collective conflict