| Abstract | Although there has been a progressive devolution of the responsibility for people management from human resource professionals to line managers, the handling of individual employment disputes has remained a jointly regulated activity (Hall and Torrington 1998a; Kersley et al. 2006; Hales 2005; Whittaker and Marchington 2003). ‘Regulation’ has taken the form of increasingly detailed policy and procedures with limits on the degree of autonomy that line managers have and the decisions that they can take (Kersley et al. 2006; Hales 2005). Historically, line managers are perceived to have favoured ‘informal’ approaches and the ‘flexibility’ to be able to make decisions that reflect contextual and cultural factors at work unit level (Rollinson 1992, 2000; Dunn and Wilkinson 2002; Franklin and Pagan 2006). Line managers thus tend to have developed different styles for handling discipline and grievance that reflect their own preferences, beliefs and objectives (Hook et al. 1996; Earnshaw et al. 2000). The potential for this to result in procedural irregularities that may trigger litigation and the consequent financial and reputational damage to the organization has been a powerful driver of formalization in the way that workplace conflict is handled and managed (Earnshaw et al. 2000; Harris et al. 2002). Further, there is a related concern to ensure consistency in the treatment of employees across the organization, as inconsistency has been found to be damaging to employee morale, trust and commitment (Cole 2008; Hall and Torrington 1998b). |
|---|