| Reducing Sources of Conflict at Work Just Makes Sense | |
A Different Opinion About the NCCI Flag Policy
|
Susan M. Heathfield
Sometimes site visitors and readers make my day! When a reader takes the time and energy to write a well-reasoned response to an article I write, I like to share it. So, when Douglas S. Wright of Fort Worth, Texas sent his thoughts to me across cyberspace, I asked him for permission to share them with you.
In a recent article, Mourning Needs Not Met, I discussed the Florida company which obtained negative national media exposure for refusing to allow employees to display the American flag on the National Day of Prayer and Remembrance. I offered the opinion that policies such as the one espoused by NCCI Holdings, Inc. were actually unfriendly to diversity. They exhibit a lack of trust for employees and violate freedom of expression. NCCI representatives declined to respond to my questions. I am happy to feature Wright's comments in response.
A Reader's Response"I find that I agree pretty thoroughly with your list of Twenty Dumb Things Organizations Do... to foul up relations with their employees. I certainly see, too, why you think as you do about the policy NCCI had concerning display of political, religious or other ideologically-charged items. However, I must disagree with you - although NCCI unwisely decided to enforce their policy at the time they did - the policy on the whole makes sense.
"Indeed, I would like to see it implemented in more workplaces. I suspect that the thought and consideration for employees that is evident in this policy is precisely the sort of thing that has earned NCCI such a high ranking as a place to work. NCCI's clear intention was to reduce sources of conflict among employees. Taking all possible steps to ensure a pleasant and productive workplace is a wise move, and it seems to me that NCCI's policy would further that goal.
"I understand your point about employees expressing their personalities at work. It strikes me, however, that personal expression of this sort creates discord and division among the staff more often than it provides a source of quiet personal satisfaction to the individual employee. Sadly, a 'live and let live' philosophy is not universal. What is perfectly innocuous to one person can constitute an insult and a provocation to another. Many examples come to mind; just a few of the many that I have seen, in many different locations in different organizations around the country, are these:
- "Without question, the abortion issue is
the most potent source of discord, if not the most widespread. A
small sticker, a lapel pin or a bumper sticker on a filing cabinet can spark a
horrid polarization of the staff into warring camps. Previously friendly
co-workers are convinced that members of the opposing camp are not just wrong,
but are actually evil. Not only will they have nothing to do with each
other, they often will sabotage one another's work and tattle to management in
efforts to get one another fired. Productivity, of course,
plummets.
- "Religion can cause a similar effect, but typically
only if a vast majority of people have one set of beliefs and only one or a few have
differing views. Even then, religion is not typically a problem if both
persuasions are fairly low-key. But invite an atheist into an office full of Southern
Baptists, or a Pentecostal in with a group of secular or casually religious
young workers, and strife frequently results.
- "Political differences come in a distant third; they
follow similar rules to the discord potentially caused by different religious beliefs.
One Rush Limbaugh fan can throw a previously
productive office of leftist democrats into disarray. I know of one office
where employees quite literally came to blows when a former President Clinton fan was transferred into a
group previously composed exclusively of Contract With America boosters.
- "Lastly, there are cultural differences, which
people often see as moral issues. A manager I knew was quite unaware of
the personal lives of two of his employees. He did know that each of them
was bright, capable and hard-working with a good sense of humor. Not surprisingly,
they each had numerous friends throughout the office. For some reason, the manager
assigned them to share an office. The two got along fine for a day or two, then quit speaking
to each other. Before long the whole office began to choose sides.
"The source of contention? As they were setting up their office, Dale set out a photo portrait of himself and his roommate, Gary. Barbara, Dale's new office mate, hewed to a strict interpretation of the Bible that held homosexuality to be an 'abomination.' She apparently took grave offense at the photograph which she saw as an in-your-face insult to God and moral behavior. As is often the case, the supervisor is the one who took it in the neck over the staff discontent and concurrent drop in effectiveness.
"In light of these kinds of happenings in workplaces, it is my feeling that NCCI's policy was a well-thought-out one. It seems that their problem lay not in the policy itself, but in management's unfortunate inability to recognize that current circumstances warranted an exception to, or even a suspension of, the policy. Their unblinking enforcement of the letter of the policy ran quite counter to the spirit."
In the Best World...
I responded, "I appreciate your well-reasoned and thoughtful comments. I still believe that how one honors diversity is to allow its expression. We do, however, have all of the people to deal with and not all of them are as mature, open-minded or unflappable as, ideally, I'd like to see. Thus, it does become harder to address each issue separately as people do things to offend one another. I can see how a policy would make the need to address individual issues less frequent."
Wright responded, "I, too, believe that one honors diversity by allowing its expression. If everyone felt likewise, policies such as NCCI's would not be needed. Sadly, all too many people feel that anyone who disagrees with their ideas is insulting and assailing those ideas. Just as sadly, they are often right."
Wright and I agree that we'd like a workplace in which strife over differences didn't occur. Sadly, we don't have that situation now. He and I choose different roads to travel on. I support addressing issues on an individual basis, as necessary. Wright supports the adoption of a policy that makes the need to address issues less likely. We both agree that one of the root issues in this situation is that managers enforced the policy in the current environment. That's an important topic for a whole future article: managerial discretion in policy enforcement and decision making.
Your comments are always welcome in the forum.
Get a Printer Friendly Version
About HR Home Page
