The socio-labor conflict that is affecting many organizations, due to the presence of elements that promote confrontation and, in general, due to the emergence of new actors on the labor scene, poses a challenge for business management: finding ways to control this situation. Companies have been created for organized work, to generate goods and services, not to be scenes of struggle. In this sense, labor peace is a condition not only for the proper functioning of the company, but also for the growth of the business sector and social progress.
Confrontation vs. scenario Peace scenario
Confrontation is a typical phenomenon in exceptional social situations. Negotiation and diplomacy are resources applicable to "peace scenarios", based on law and institutionality. How can companies maintain the necessary "normal operations" and sustainability conditions, in exceptional scenarios? When the social-labor confrontation is a continuous threat in the companies, what to do? Just as the military are good at war and diplomats at law-based concertation, managers are good at "handling everything that is manageable"; that is, what can be translated into specific strategies, concrete actions, resources and means of control.
Where does the conception of the strategy that we propose in this essay come from? Well, when we analyze what has been happening in many companies, we find a typical scenario of struggle for social power, aimed at achieving prominence, by taking advantage of advantages, the search for "ceded space" and "flanks of attack ”, and the displacement of other leaders involved in the situation. In this context, protagonism acquires special relevance, both as a concept and as a resource for action.
Social influence and protagonism
This proposal revolves around two key concepts: social influence and protagonism. From this perspective, social influence is the ability to exercise dominance over the wills of a group, with a certain objective, by obtaining and taking advantage of advantages and opportunities, and the displacement of other leaders who intervene in the situation. For its part, protagonism is understood as social influence in action or the possibility of exercising relevant actions in a group or group, to achieve relevance in a key scenario or moment, capitalizing interests in favor of their own cause.
When it comes to scenarios based on healthy rules of the game and socially acceptable objectives are pursued, leading role is normal. In this case, we are talking about a leading role achieved with an achievement-oriented strategy and a job well done. But, when the leading role is sought through confrontation, where space is taken away and advantages are “taken for granted”, then we are faced with a strategy of exception, of struggle for social power in the company. This usually happens during union elections, but when a permanent fight scenario is established within it, promoted by adverse interests, then it is necessary to adopt a labor management model that goes beyond conventional schemes.
Looking for ways of solution
When the legal route is not an effective option to limit the action of the actors that promote confrontation; when agreeing to the confrontation (accepting the fight, exchanging compulsive actions) means "defeat in three acts"; and the “dismantling of the Trojan horse” (counteracting the effects of the opponent's strategy) translates into nullification due to attrition, so a solution inspired by the strategy of intelligent action must be sought. In this way, neutralizing the threat emerges as a viable option.
In this sense, a strategy is proposed for the effective management of social influence in the company, aimed at minimizing the role of third parties, through a proactive labor management model and the internal strengthening of the company, in terms of preventing the "Transfer of space", optimally take advantage of their own advantages, as well as avoiding the generation of "discard benefits", which are profitable by third parties against the company.
In this context, third parties are defined as “those who have arrived later” or those who “have adverse interests” to the organization, even when they belong to it. Regarding the role of third parties, a question arises: Are third parties an emerging force, or are we witnessing a phenomenon of displacement of natural or formal leaders? Well, it can be any one of these options; it all depends on the particular characteristics of the situation. However, no one is guaranteed the leading role; it is a matter of advantages and opportunities.
Protagonism vs. Leadership
We must differentiate between protagonism and leadership. Leadership arises from a process that, in some cases, can be far-reaching, while the leading role may suddenly break in, at a given moment. Leadership tends to be long-lasting and the influence of the leader depends on the degree of acceptance and support of the followers; the deployment of the leader's influence depends on the "expectations of the people" and the performance adjusted to them. On the other hand, the concept of protagonism underlies the idea of a scenario of deployment of "social influence", at a time of variable duration, where we find a group or leader on the one hand, and a group or group of people on the other, they become "momentary followers". The possibility of playing a leading role,Facing the option for leadership or the displacement of other leaders present in the situation, is mainly determined by the presence and use of advantages and opportunities. But, just as the protagonism arises abruptly, it can also disappear quickly.
Prominence requirements
The viability of managing social influence in the company is based on the following premise: we can live with the adversary in the same territory, if we manage to control the “flash point”, that is, the point at which relationships ignite. This is one of the lessons of History, from the earliest times. In a pluralistic society, this becomes a normal situation and a requirement for coexistence.
The starting point of the theses that support the social influence of leaders, compared to the option of their own role or that of others, in companies is as follows: the role is not decreed, it is assumed if certain requirements are possessed. Such requirements are indicated below:
1. Resources: financial, technological, information, legal, institutional;
2. Preparation: training, mainly for the proper management of resources;
3. Advantages: access to information, getting there before the other, solid relationships with people, control of the process;
4. Opportunity: the concrete space, the specific point to display the leading role (for example, a claim).
From the consideration of the requirements, then we can present below the Postulates of the leading role:
1. The leading role is not decreed, it is assumed if the requirements are met;
2. The requirements of the leading role "are manageable"; that is, you can exercise control over them;
3. The role of the formal leader shifts to third parties, only when the former leaves space or allows it;
4. The natural or formal leader “has advantages over third parties”, but can only take advantage of them when he has the resources and the preparation;
5. Under manageable conditions, the opportunity for third parties tends to be reduced.
What activates the role of third parties
Now, a basic question arises: What determines the activation of the role of third parties in an organization? The answer to this question is so simple and straightforward, that it seems trivial: the claim is the main activator of the role of third parties.
The claim can be any problem, situation, deficiency, unsafe condition, threat to the worker or chronic dissatisfaction that, when formalized or presented as a demand, becomes a flag of struggle in the hands of the third party.
The claim is like the trigger that ignites relations between the company and third parties, who are searching, at all costs, for a fight argument.
This is so, although it seems simple, because the claim:
- Evidence of a weakness of the company or vulnerable point;
- It concentrates the discontent, latent before, in a specific point;
- Provides advantage to the adversary; you have a value argument in your hands;
- Establish the attack dividing line and provide fight flag;
- Activate the role of third parties; grant an opportunity.
The claim exercises such a significant action in activating the role of third parties that the organization or company must take care of managing the genesis of the conflict: those conditions that at any given moment can become a claim.
The main point in favor of the company in the management of social influence is indicated in postulate 4 of the leading role: "the formal leader has advantages over third parties"; just as the groom has advantages over others who try to take his place, as long as, as stated in postulate 4 himself, he “… has the resources and the preparation”.
The key: proactive job management
Now, taking advantage of the formal leaders (managers and supervisors) of the organization is, first of all, that they control the process "upstream", where the genesis of the conflict is. The role of the third party makes sense when the condition has been transformed into a claim, not before. Instead, the formal leader can early identify the condition in its conflicting potential, and seek early solution. If he does so, and in a habitual way, the third party will only receive "sardines instead of big fish".
At this point, proactive labor management emerges, the basis for managing social influence within the company, which is defined as “the strategy that consists of early identifying the conditions that generate claims and procuring an early solution, to avoid generating of claims ”.
Innocent surrender syndrome
A typical question is: When does the formal leader “give up space” or grant advantages to the role of third parties? This happens when any of the following conditions occurs: the formal leader (supervisor or manager) does not have sufficient preparation to act effectively, lacks resources or internal support to solve problems of his workers, lacks effective and quick access to sources internal information.
The foregoing determines that the third party "arrives first" or gets the information sooner, and in the presence of a claim or demand from a worker (not resolved by his supervisor or manager), the third party uses the power of compulsion (threatens to stop the production line, for example) and he manages to solve the problem, and he stands before the worker as the hero. The supervisor? He remains incapable before the worker; loses credibility with the workers, "the internal force, weakened".
Here, the syndrome of innocent surrender emerges, which consists in that with the company's own resources, false heroes are generated, leaving the organization unattended or weakened to the supervisor (without decision-making power; without access to information; from hands tied to solve problems to the worker). Then the company, due to the poor design of its internal systems or due to carelessness, delivers "on a silver platter", advantages and opportunities for leadership to third parties, leaving its internal force (supervisors) unarmed, before third parties "armed to the teeth "
In the previous case, very common in many companies, the “transfer of space” is given to the role of third parties and the delivery of opportunities “by discard”. Because the problem-solving hero must be the supervisor, since at the end of the day such a solution occurs "with the company's own resources." A typical source of claims is errors in payments to workers in the payroll unit.
Proactive management of occupational health and safety
Innocent surrender cases are complemented, to the greatest disadvantage of the company, with the inappropriate appointment of employer representatives in occupational health and safety committees. These representatives of the employer are appointed “by finger” by the senior management. Designated people, in many cases say: “I am in this because they forced me; I am not ready for this; I don't like this role. "
They then become stone guests at committee meetings, and let worker delegates "do the job of inspecting hazards, identifying unsafe conditions and formulating claims," to serve them at the committee table. What happens here then? Well, the "transfer of space", the "concession of advantages" and the "delivery of opportunities" to the role of third parties.
The appointment of employer representatives on these committees is a strategic matter, and must be done in a conscious way: clear selection criteria, endowment of resources, granting of time to better carry out their work in the committee (other than “in addition to their usual functions ”), access to information, support to take advantage of the company's own advantages (so that they do not become“ discard advantages ”in the hands of third parties), as well as incentives for the due recognition of the work of these people.
Neutralizing the threat
In summary, the threat neutralization strategy rests on the “upstream” control of the claims generation process. There is the source or the conditions that generate the conflict. This is the main advantage of the formal leader, who does not have the third party. It is about controlling the genesis of the conflict; those unattended situations or potential claims. Thus, the company can have “the pan by the handle”.
On the other hand, the company must develop in its managers and supervisors the competencies that determine the ability to "influence", as well as its "degree of motivation" to act proactively in the face of differences and complaints.
The neutralization of the threat is guided by the following strategies, derived from the previous foundation:
- Proactive labor management or early detection and early solution of problems: "leave sardines to third parties, instead of large fish";
- Revalue the authority of the supervisor: provide him with ample resources to act and solve problems:
- Strengthen the training of the supervisor, in legal framework, social competences and conflict management;
- Strengthen the supervisor's ability to take advantage and opportunities,
in favor of the company (support of service units).
Profile of the armored company in the face of conflict
The analysis of cases of companies that have successfully faced the social and labor conflict, as well as others that have succumbed to it, have allowed us to specify the profile of the armored company in the face of conflict, which must meet the following requirements:
to. Integration factors (conditions that determine the integration and the sense of belonging of the staff); This is also called the “social floor” (socioeconomic benefits and work environment) and it is what determines that workers come out in defense of the company with the slogan “don't mess with my company”.
b. Proactive labor management (early identification and early problem solving); leave sardines instead of big fish to third parties.
c. Harmonious expansion and integration of roles in the health and safety committee. It consists of expanding participation in security matters to trade unionists, supervisors and workers in general, in addition to the workers' delegates. Thus, the protagonism belongs to everyone and not to a particular group.
d. Supervisory strength; supervisors are the internal force; It is necessary to provide them with authority and capacity for action, resources, preparation and internal support;
and. Values for coexistence: harmony, solidarity, fellowship, cooperation and friendly, transparent and fluid communication;
F. Negotiation style: a new way of dealing with differences; a dialogue based on the recognition of the counterpart and at meeting points; and
g. Managerial and supervisory praxis: management and performance adjusted to ethics, compliance with the legal framework, the principles of efficient action and good relationships.
