ACTIVITY: Boundaries

Defined standards for behaviour

In this scenario the accepted standards for behaviour have been crossed by the management team.  This is because a ‘precedent’ has been set (and therefore a boundary) whereby employees have been permitted and enabled to undertake at least some of the Christmas party planning and organisation during work time.  The withdrawal of that permission by the management team, particularly without consultation and notice, has breached that boundary which has resulted in conflict.

There is a simultaneous crossing of a boundary by the organising committee.  This relates to a relatively unprofessional response and a refusal to engage with the management team in an attempt to find an amicable outcome.  It is both a requirement and expectation that employees will behave in a professional and mature manner and as this has not occurred on this occasion there has been further escalation of the conflict.

Jurisdiction or legitimacy

There is no doubt that the management team have the formal jurisdiction to direct that any organisation or planning of the Christmas party is completed in the employees’ own time, rather than company time.  The management team have indicated there is a heavy workload, competing interests and a number of deadlines that need to be met.  In other words, the needs of the business must take priority and the management team have the legitimate authority to direct their employees towards that outcome as opposed to organising the Christmas party.  There is little doubt that the employees would recognise that official legitimacy, however the conflict has occurred as a result of what the employees most likely consider to be a lack of jurisdiction or legitimacy with respect to an established informal boundary.

Authority or enforcement

There is no readily identifiable breach of any authority or enforcement boundary in this instance.  Certainly the management team have legitimate formal authority and ability to enforce their ‘rules’ in relation to the organisation and planning of the Christmas party during work time.  While this is an unpopular decision with the employees, there can be little doubt that the management team have every right to adopt this approach and enforce the newly established boundary.

Norms

In many respects this is probably the most significant boundary that has been crossed.  The event is a valued event across the organisation and experiences a significant turnout each year.  It provides employees with an opportunity to wind down, network across the organisation and connect with each other at all levels.  It has been an accepted practice or norm that employees are afforded the opportunity to complete at least some tasks, planning and organisation in work time and that this has been valued by both management and employees.  The fact that that norm, as a boundary, has ben crossed has resulted in a heightened emotional reaction from employees who now feel undervalued, unappreciated and taken for granted.  This has evoked an emotional response and an escalated level of conflict founded in emotion and the formation of alliances against the management team.

2. Identify and explain whether the reason for any crossing or threatened crossing of a boundary or boundaries appears to have been caused by:

A deliberate expansion of a boundary past acceptable norms is the key issue in this scenario.  The management team have deliberately expanded an established boundary past the acceptable norms.  The situation of employees committing significant time, energy and resources towards ensuring a successful event has been the established norm.  Its lack of formality does not diminish in any way the legitimacy of it as a norm in the minds of the employees.  Indeed, this may even produce a more acute response to a decision such as this as a breach of organisational culture inherently contradicts the “way things are done around here”.  The imposition of formal rules, policies and processes is accepted and acknowledged by all employees (regardless of whether they agree with them or not) and any breach is readily identifiable and attracts an established and recognised ‘punishment’.  However, a decision or action that fails to align with accepted and established workplace culture creates confusion, apprehension and a sense of ‘how can they do this?!’.  While management has the formal right and authority to expand that boundary, there should have been a recognition that a significant shift away from established culture and the inherent organisational change would evoke a significant and acute response.  Organisational change will almost inevitably create an environment for conflict and change management principles could have been far better employed in this instance to mitigate the outcome.  These include effective and timely communication, the reasons for the change, the benefits to the organisation and those employed within it and introducing incremental rather than wholesale change.

The reasons and causes for crossing boundaries in this scenario include:

• One of the main reasons for the crossing of of the boundary by the volunteers was a lack of clarity around what the the actual rules were regarding their work carried out for the Christmas party. They had become accustomed to a norm that had evolved over time and it appears that previously no boundaries had been set.
• The management committee had the authority to make rules around the Christmas party and enforcing the fact that volunteers work in their own time, however there was obviously a lack of acceptance of this by both the volunteers and the wider organisation going by the negative response they received.
• The management committee is some respects could have taken a more measured approach in that they could have simply reduced the amount of time the the volunteers were allowed during work hours, ensuring that the planning could go ahead and that the conflict did not rise to the level it did.