CAUSES AND IMPACTS OF CONFLICT AT WORKPLACE

i

REPUBLIC OF RWANDA

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

P.O BOX 6913 KIGALI

CAUSES AND IMPACTS OF CONFLICT AT

WORKPLACE

MAY 2014

ii

CONTENTS PAGES

Executive summary .................................................................................................................. vi

List of figures ......................................................................................................................... ix

List of tables .......................................................................................................................... x

Abbreviations and accronyms ................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background of the study ................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Rationale of the study ....................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Objectives of the study ..................................................................................................... 3

1.3.1 Specific objectives ....................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Scope of the study ............................................................................................................ 3

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 4

2.1. Definition of concept ........................................................................................................ 4

2.1.1. Conflict ........................................................................................................................ 4

2.1.2. Complaints ................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.3. Disputes ....................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.4. Workplace .................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.5. Conflict at workplace ................................................................................................... 5

2.1.6. Types of conflict .......................................................................................................... 7

2.1.7. Conflict and institutional performance ...................................................................... 12

2.1.8. Causes of conflict at workplace ................................................................................. 12

2.1.9. Conflict resolution ..................................................................................................... 12

2.1.10. Conflict transformation .............................................................................................. 13

2.2. Legal regimes providing for conflict resolution ............................................................. 13

2.2.1. Discrepancy in laws: .................................................................................................. 15

2.2.2. Managers’ personal misconduct ................................................................................ 16

2.2.3. Personal bias .............................................................................................................. 16

ii

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 17

3.1. Research design .............................................................................................................. 17

3.2. Data collection ................................................................................................................ 18

3.2.1. Secondary data ........................................................................................................... 18

3.2.2. Primary data ............................................................................................................... 19

3.2.3. Sampling .................................................................................................................... 20

3.2.4. Sample size. ............................................................................................................... 21

3.3. Selection & training of enumerators............................................................................... 24

3.4. Pretest ............................................................................................................................. 25

3.5. Data processing .............................................................................................................. 25

3.6. Data coding ................................................................................................................ 25

3.7. Data entry ....................................................................................................................... 25

3.8. Data classification .......................................................................................................... 25

3.9. Data tabulation................................................................................................................ 26

3.10. Diagrammatic and data presentation .............................................................................. 26

3.11. Analysis and interpretation ............................................................................................. 26

3.12. Reporting ........................................................................................................................ 26

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 27

4.1. Description of the study population ............................................................................... 27

4.1.1. Distribution of respondents by sex ............................................................................ 27

4.1.2. Distribution of respondents by age ............................................................................ 28

4.1.3. Distribution of respondents by civil status ................................................................ 28

4.1.4. Distribution of respondents by level of education ..................................................... 29

4.1.5. Distribution of respondents by employment rank ..................................................... 30

4.1.6. Distribution of respondents by working experience .................................................. 31

4.2. Existence of conflict at workplace ................................................................................. 32

4.2.1. Distribution of employees who faced conflict at workplace ..................................... 32

4.2.2. Distribution of employees who faced conflict at workplace ..................................... 33

iii

4.2.3. Perception of employees on types of conflicts .......................................................... 35

4.2.4. Perception of employees on frequency of conflicts at workplace ............................. 36

4.2.7. Conflicts at district level ............................................................................................ 39

4.3. Causes of conflict at workplace ...................................................................................... 39

4.3.1. Employees’ behaviours .............................................................................................. 39

4.3.2. Institutional structure and procedures ........................................................................ 45

4.3.3. Leadership related causes .......................................................................................... 53

4.3.4. Recruitment and placement of employees ................................................................. 56

4.3.5. Harassment ................................................................................................................ 58

4.3.6. External influences on conflicts at work place .......................................................... 61

4.3.7. Ranking of employees’ perception on causes of conflict at workplace ..................... 63

4.4. Impact of conflict at workplace ...................................................................................... 67

4.4.1. Individual impact ....................................................................................................... 67

4.4.2. Institutional impact .................................................................................................... 69

4.5. Conflict positive impact ................................................................................................. 80

4.5.1. Building team cohesion (teamwork) .......................................................................... 80

4.5.2. Improving organizational practices ........................................................................... 80

4.5.3. Streamlining policies and procedures ............................................................................. 81

4.5.4. Reduces tasks’ vagueness .......................................................................................... 81

4.5.5. Improving quality of decision making ....................................................................... 81

4.5.6. Improved workplace conflict management skills ...................................................... 81

4.6. Conflict prevention mechanism at your workplace ........................................................ 82

4.6.1. Employees’ perceptions on the role of institutions in preventing conflicts............... 83

4.7. The role of public service commission in workplace conflict resolution ....................... 84

4.7.1. Awareness of employee on PSC ................................................................................ 84

4.7.2. Employees’ awareness on PSC in conflict resolution ............................................... 85

4.7.3. Cases of employee who addressed their complaints to PSC ..................................... 85

4.7.4. Employees’ awareness on successful of conflict resolution ...................................... 86

4.7.5. Institutional perception towards PSC mandate .......................................................... 87

4.7.6. Suggestions for improving PSC services ................................................................... 88

iv

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 89

RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 90

ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................ 95

Questionnaire ........................................................................................................................ 95

Interview guide ...................................................................................................................... 108

List of public institutions visited............................................................................................ 109

v

Foreword

The Public Service Commission (PSC) is a national body, created by Article 181 of the

Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda of June 4, 2003 as amended to date. PSC is governed by

Law No 39/2012 of 24/12/2012 that determines the responsibilities, organization and functioning

of the public service. Amongst other duties, the Commission is mandated to carry out research

on matters relating human resources management.

It is in this regard that the Commission conducted ―A study on Causes and Impacts of conflict

at workplace‖ with the following objectives:

1. To identify the causes of conflicts at workplace;

2. To assess the impact of conflicts at workplace;

3. To clarify the role that has been played by the Public Service Commission to reduce conflicts at

workplace;

4. To formulate the recommendations on how to avoid the conflicts at workplace.

It is with pleasure that the Public Service Commission presents the findings of the study entitled

―Causes and Impact of conflict at workplace” to you.

It is apparent that the levels of conflicts are still high as per public expectations regarding

working environment of public servants. However, the Public Service Commission will do all it

takes in its mandate to eradicate or minimize conflicts to enhance employee and institutional

performance.

I would like to appreciate the continued support and guidance of the Chairperson and all

Commissioners of the Public Service Commission. We would like also to appreciate the support

extended to us by the National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR).

I do acknowledge the work of the 1-5 SAFE Ltd which undertook the assignment. I thank

respondents and all Rwandans who took part in this survey, as a group and individuals.

Thank you

Angelina MUGANZA

Executive Secretary

Public service Commission

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This executive summary highlights major aspects of the study on causes of conflict at workplace;

the impact of conflict on staff and institutions and the role of PSC in reducing conflicts at

workplace.

RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

Following the assessment of appeal cases received by the Public Service Commission from

various government institutions (Ministries, Agencies and Districts) concerning Human

Resource Management, the Public Service Commission found it imperative to conduct a study on

causes of conflict in the workplace in order to improve working environment and enhance

effective performance and efficient service delivery in public service sector.

Conflict in the workplace is a common occurrence; this is because of differences in employees'

personalities and values. Dealing with employees’ conflict in a timely manner is crucial to

maintaining a healthy working environment.

Conflict cases pointing to employees’ management remain voluminous according to the data

available at Public Service Commission. The existence of such conflicts has negative impact on

the working environment and the staff performance, not mentioning the government loss of

funds totalling 293,642,068Frw through court cases. (PSC Annual Report: 2012-2013.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The study objectives focus on compiling a detailed report on the causes and impact of conflicts at

workplace in the public service sector. Among the specific objectives the study intends:

To identify the causes of conflicts at workplace;

To assess the impact of conflicts at workplace

To clarify the role that has been played by the Public Service Commission in reducing

the conflicts at workplace.

To formulate recommendations on how to avoid the conflicts at workplace.

vii

SCOPE OF THE STUDY AND METHODOLOGY

The study focused on Public Institutions including Ministries, Government agencies, Provinces,

Districts and Sectors, constituting at least 27% (292) of 1071 public institutions and stretching

over the period between 2009 and 2013. The data both quantitative and qualitative were

collected using research techniques and tools clearly defined to meet study objectives. 582

respondents filled the questionnaire while 50 interviewees participated to in-depth interview.

FINDINGS

The demographic factors distributed participants into various categories with their corresponding

percentages: 57.6% (335 employees) Males and 42.4% (247 employees) Females. According to

the distributive age, 53.4% (311 employees) aged between 31 and 40 years and 22.5% (131

employees) aged between 21 and 30 years; similarly, 20.6% (120 employees) aged between 41

and 50 years while 3.5% (20 employees) of respondents were between 51 and 65 years. The civil

status pointed to 75.3% (438) as married, 21.3% (124 employees) single, 2% (12 employees)

widows/widowers and 0.9% (5 employees) ascribed to faith and 0.5% ( 3 employees) divorced.

Respondents’ education status indicated that 49.6% (290 employees) possess Bachelor’s Degree.

24.6 % (143) Diploma, 19.8% (115 employees) Certificates of senior 6 and 0.2% (1 employee)

completed primary school; 0.2% (1 employee) possess Master’s Degree and 0.2% (1 employee)

possess PhD. Research indicates that 63.9% (372 employees) of respondents are professional

employees, 31,1% (181 employees) occupy managerial posts while 5% (29 employees) are

professional staff. 53.6% (311 employees) have less than 5 years of working experience, 34.2%

(199 employees) have between 5 and 10 years and 8.6% (50 employees) have between 10 and

15 while 3.6% (22 employees) have more than 15 years of working experience.

CAUSES AND IMPACT OF CONFLICT AT WORKPLACE

The identified causes of conflict range from employees’ behaviours to institutional culture,

leadership management style, recruitment and placement system, employees’ harassment, and

external influences. The impact of conflict was analysed taking into account the individual as

well as institutional aspects and range from negative to positive aspects. The negative impact

include but is not limited to broken relationships, job insecurity, loss of commitment to work,

viii

forceful resignation, moral injury/psychological harm, waste of time and resources, reduced

productivity, unjustified absenteeism, judicial and penal effects, to mention a few. The positive

impact include but not limited to building team cohesion, improving organizational practices,

streamlining policies and procedures, reducing vagueness of tasks, improving quality decisions,

reducing conflicts at workplace and enhances management skills. Conflict prevention is possible

at workplace and the Public Service Commission plays a great role in conflict transformation in

public institutions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Among the many recommendations directed to the Public Service Commission (PSC) it is

advisable to focus on bulding synergy with the Ministry of Public Service and labour

(MIFOTRA), to enahnce trainings aimed at strengthening the capacity of public service

employees and managers in conflict management and sensitization on protection of

employees’rights and responsibilities at workplace to ensure improved working relationships and

quality service. The PSC should decentralize and operationalise its offices at the District level to

enahnce efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery and strengthen monitoring systems to

track the Public institutions which do not comply with the PSC decisions and advocate for

punitive measures to inculcate the culture of respect to PSC directives and decisions towards

policy implemeneters.

Leaders of public institutions must be ware that decision making should be done in consultation

with the law, particularly when effecting staff stansfers, dismissals and temporary suspension in

order to reduce the negative impact of conflict leading the insitutions to be summoned in courts

of law.

Findings indicated that employees’ behaviour (positive and negative) cause conflict at

workplace; to avoid such misbehaviour, institutions should put in place codes of conduct and

establish regular mechanisms to monitor staff adherence to code of conduct while at the

workplace. Public institutions should refer to the presidential order no 65/01 of 04/ March

03/2014 to set up appropriate ways of imposing disciplline and professional conduct at the

workplace. Leaders, supervisors and employees should strive to collectively adhere to the

provisions of this order to ensure effective managemernt of conflict at workplace.

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure no 1: Research design.................................................................................................... 17

Figure no 2: Distribution of respondents by sex....................................................................... 27

Figure no 3: Distribution of Respondents by Age .................................................................... 28

Figure no 4: Distribution of Respondents by Civil Status ........................................................ 29

Figure no 5: Distribution of respondents by level of education ............................................... 30

Figure no 6: Distribution of respondents by employment rank ................................................ 30

Figure no 7: Distribution of respondents by working experience ............................................. 31

Figure no 8: Employees who experienced conflict at workplace ............................................. 32

Figure no 9: Types of conflict that occur at workplace ............................................................ 35

Figure no 10: The frequency of conflicts at workplace ............................................................ 36

Figure no 11: A reflection of the degree of intensity of conflicts at workplace ....................... 37

Figure no 12: Perception of employees on external influences as cause of conflict ................ 61

Figure no 13: Employees who left their institution because of workplace conflicts ................ 69

Figure no 14: Time spent by employees thinking about the case of conflict ........................... 71

Figure no 15: Organizations sued by the court of law .............................................................. 73

Figure no 16: Conflict prevention mechanism at workplace .................................................... 82

Figure no 17: Employees’ perceptions on the role of institutions in preventing conflicts ....... 83

Figure no 18: Awareness of employees about Public Service Commission ............................ 84

Figure no 19: Awareness of employees on the role of PSC in conflict resolution ................... 85

Figure no 20: Awareness of cases of people who addressed their complaints to PSC............. 86

Figure no 21: Employees’ awareness on successful of conflict ............................................... 87

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table no 1: Number of Public institutions................................................................................ 22

Table no 2: Public institutions sampled .................................................................................... 23

Table no 3: Disaggregation of respondents by techniques used ............................................... 24

Table no 4: Distribution of employees who faced conflict at their workplace. ....................... 33

Table no 5: Categories of employees where conflicts mostly occur ........................................ 38

Table no 6: The existence of conflicts at district level ............................................................. 39

Table no 7: Employees’ behaviours that cause conflict ........................................................... 40

Table no 8: Causes of conflicts that are related to institutional structure................................. 47

Table no 9: Causes of conflicts that are related to leadership .................................................. 54

Table no 10: Recruitment and placement of employees as sources of conflicts ...................... 57

Table no 11: Harassment as a cause of conflicts in public institutions .................................... 59

Table no 12: Impact of conflict on employees (individual impact) verify ............................... 67

Table no 13: Impact of conflict on institution .......................................................................... 70

Table no 14: Cost of wasted time by employees who faced conflict ....................................... 74

Table no 15: Lost in terms of recruitment process ................................................................... 75

Table no 16: Nyarugenge High court Judgments and their cost to the government of Rwanda76

Table no 17: Direct cost............................................................................................................ 78

Table no 18: Indirect cost ......................................................................................................... 79

Table no 19: Positive impact of a conflict well managed......................................................... 80

xi

ABREVIATIONS AND ACCRONYMS

CHUB: Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Butare

CNLG: Commission Nationale de Lutte contre le Genocide

CG: Central Government

HC: Health Centres

KIE: Kigali Institute of Education

LG: Local Government

MIGEPROF: Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion

MINAGRI: Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources

MINAFET: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation

MINEDUC: Ministry of Education

MINALOC: Ministry of Local Government

MINIJUST: Ministry of Justice

MIFOTRA: Ministry of Public Service and Labour

BNR: Banque Nationale du Rwanda

PBF: Performance Based Financing

PM: Prime Minister

OAG: Office of Auditor General

ONATRACOM: Office National des Transports en Commun

PSC: Public Service Commission

RDB: Rwanda Development Board

RALGA: Rwandese Association of Local Government Authority

RRA: Rwanda Revenue Authority

SMART: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timely

i

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the rationale of the study, background of the study, objectives as well as

the scope of this study.

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The government of Rwanda defined its vision to be attained by 2020. In order to achieve this

goal, various strategies were put in place, among them including but not limited to the EDPRS I

and II. EDPRS II, in its third pillar stressed good governance as a cornerstone for increasing

performance and accelerating the development of the country. To achieve this objective, capacity

building for public employees gained attention of leaders as a priority for national development.

Capacity building in this aspect focusing not only in skills development but also good working

conditions to enhance effectiveness and efficient performance which leaders must provide as a

prerequisite for national development. Good governance is the means for achieving the goals

outlined in the EDPRS II. The government established mechanisms to and oversight institutions

charged with overseeing the implementation of laws, orders, regulations and best practices

promoting good governance principles. It is worth noting that all public servants must respect the

principle of transparency, accountability and commitment to work. suffice to note that the 2008,

establishment of the Public Service Commission as an independent oversight public institution

ensuring that public servants are fairly and impartially recruited, placed, managed and supported

based on principles of equity, transparency, good governance and integrity to deliver high quality

service in an effective and efficient manner, fulfilled the vision 2020 ambition.

The Public Service Commission is governed by the Law No 39/2012 of 24/12/2012 that

determines the responsibilities, organization and functioning of the public service. It has in its

missions to conduct studies on laws, orders, required qualifications and other issues related to

staff management and development and state institutions providing public service in order to

make recommendations to the Government.

Conflict in the workplace is a common occurrence; this is because of differences in employees'

personalities and values. Dealing with employees’ conflict in a timely manner is crucial to

maintaining a healthy work environment. Believing that conflict will simply disappear is an

2

inaccurate assumption because simple conflicts can grow into major problems if not dealt with

appropriately. Managers should understand the common causes of employees’ conflicts, in order

to find a solution before the issues become unmanageable.

Conflict cases pointing to employees’ management are still many according to the data available

at Public Service Commission. The existence of such conflicts has negative impact on the

working environment and the staff performance. This led Government to lose funds equivalent to

293,642,068Frw through court cases as mentioned in the Public Service Commission annual

report of 2012-2013.

The conflict cases reported to the Public Service Commission seem to be increasing every year

For instance, in 2008, Public Service Commission has received 32cases, in 2009, the conflict

increased to 235 cases, in 2009-2010, the cases were 260 while in 2012-2013 the cases submitted

to PSC were 487. Those cases were related to various human resources management aspect such

as performance appraisal, salaries, misconduct, demotion and transfer, violence in workplace,

desertion from the work as well as recruitment test and placement of employees.

It is in this context that PSC wants to assess the causes of conflict and its impact at work place,

particularly in public institutions in order to make sound recommendations for conflict

prevention and management.

1.2 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

After assessing the conflict cases received by PSC from various government institutions

(Ministries, Institutions and Districts) concerning Human Resources Management, the Public

Service Commission found it imperative to conduct a study on causes of conflict in the

workplace in order to improve working environment and enhance effective performance and

efficient service delivery in public service sector.

3

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objective of the consultancy is to compile a detailed report on the causes and impact of

conflicts at workplace in the public service sector.

1.3.1 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

The foregoing elements constitute specific objectives:

To identify the causes of conflicts at workplace;

To assess the impacts of conflicts at workplace

To clarify the role that has been played by the Public Service Commission to reduce

conflicts at workplace.

To formulate the recommendations on how to avoid the conflicts at workplace.

1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study will focus on Public Institutions including Ministries, Government agencies, Provinces

and Decentralized entities mainly Districts and Sectors, constituting at least 40% and stretch over

the period between 2009 and 2013.

The data will be collected using research techniques and tools clearly defined to meet study

objectives.

4

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter outlines the definition of conflict, and differentiate it with related terms.

2.1. DEFINITION OF CONCEPT

According to Stoner and Freeman, (1992, p 548), a Conflict is defined as a disagreement

between two or more parties with perceived incompatible goals or interests. This disagreement

can be about the allocation of resources or clashes regarding goals, values, and so on that can

occurs on the interpersonal or organizational level. Many authors define conflict in various ways;

the common point in the definitions offered though is the parties’ perceived incompatible goals

or interests. Similarly, at workplace there numerous interests are represented by the parties

converging at that location for a common cause—work. Management of such interests therefore,

requires dynamic, proactive and creative conflict management systems put in place to ensure a

vibrant favourable work environment.

2.1.1. CONFLICT

According to Masters, M.E and Albright R.R (2002), conflict exists when two or more parties

disagree about something. These parties are interdependent, meaning that the resolution of the

conflict to mutual satisfaction cannot occur without some mutual effort. The disagreement may

be real or perceived, but it is psychologically felt by at least one of the parties. Also, a conflict

may or may not result in an observable response. The absence of overtly conflictual behaviour is

not indicative of the absence of conflict. This is because conflict occurs in phases and when it is

still latent, the parties may still feel the presence of room for settlement prior to conflict

escalation. In this research, the focus will be put on the conflict that has overt conflict behaviour.

As stated by Masters, M.E and Albright R.R (2002), ―wherever disagreement occurs, you have

conflict‖ p 14.

According to David Laton (2008, p 74), conflict arises from disagreements over the goals to

attain or the methods used to accomplish these goals.

5

2.1.2. COMPLAINTS

According to Collins,S.D (2009) A complaint is an expression of divergence in opinion or the

viewpoint between two parties reflecting one party’s dissatisfaction. A complaint is a lower level

of conflict. Its resolution requires minimal and mutual commitment and engagement from the

two parties.

2.1.3. DISPUTES

According to Collins,S.D (2009), disputes have their origins in disagreements between the

individuals. The disagreement becomes a dispute when one or the other party cannot

accommodate the consequences of the disagreement, and insists on having it resolved because

the party feels interests are undermined when the disagreement remains unresolved. When the

dispute is not resolved in due time, it degenerates into a conflict

2.1.4. WORKPLACE

The workplace is defined by Masters, M.E and Albright R.R (2002), as “the setting in which

work is performed” P.14. It can be interpreted as a physical location at which people interact in

the process of producing goods or services for an organizational purpose. .

2.1.5. CONFLICT AT WORKPLACE

At workplace conflict tends to manifest in two broad categories: (1) it can be a conflict between

individuals involving colleagues, employees and their managers. In this way, it may be that two

workers simply don’t get on; or that an individual has a grievance against their supervisor or

manager (2), it can be also between groups involving teams or large groups of employees and

management. Conflict may take the form of rivalry between teams; or it may be apparent by the

lack of trust and cooperation between large groups of employees and management.

On the broad side, Pondy cited by Afzalur (2011) has argued that organizational conflict can

best be understood as a dynamic process underlying organizational behaviour. Tedeschi cited by

Afzalur (2011) takes a middle position defining conflict as ―an interactive state in which the

behaviours or goals of one actor are to some degree incompatible with the behaviours or goals of

6

some other actor or actors‖ (p 232). In this way, the actor is any social entity from the individual

to the corporate body itself.

Smith (1966) opines that conflict is ―a situation in which the conditions, practices, or goals for

the different participants are inherently incompatible‖ (p.551).Similarly, conflict is seen as the

―type of behaviour which occurs when two or more parties are in opposition or in battle as a

result a perceived relative deprivation from the activities of or interacting with another person or

group‖ (Litterer, 1966, p. 180).

According to Afzalur (2011:199) assessing the above definitions one can argue that the

foregoing definitions overlap with respect to the following elements:

1. Conflict includes opposing interests between individuals or groups in a zero-sum

situation.

2. Such opposed interests must be recognised for a conflict to exist

3. Conflict involves beliefs, by either side that the other will undermine its interests

4. Conflict is a process, it develops out of the existing relationships between individuals or

groups and reflects their past interactions and the contexts in which these relationships

took place

5. Actions by one or both sides do, in fact produce uncomfortable situation for the others’

goals.

In this study, conflict is defined as an interactive process manifested in incompatibilities,

disagreements, or dissonance within or between social entities (i.e individual, group,

organization). A conflict occurs when one or two social entity (i.e)

1. Is required to engage in an activity that is incongruent with his or her needs or interests;

2. Hold behavioural preferences, the satisfaction of which is incompatible with another

person’s implementation of his or her preferences;

3. Wants some mutually desirable resources that is in short supply, such that the wants of

everyone may not be satisfied fully;

4. Possesses attitudes, values, skills, and goals that are salient in directing one’s behaviour

but that are perceived to be exclusive of the attitudes, values, skills and goals held by

other(s);

5. Has partially exclusive behavioural preferences regarding joint action and;

6. Is interdependent in the performance of functions or activities.

7

According to Roloff (1987, p. 496),cited by Warren.O. Lokke (2013,p6) ―organizational conflict

occurs when members of one group engage in activities presumed incompatible with the interests

of colleagues within their network , members of other groups, or unaffiliated individuals who

utilize the services or products of the organization‖ (P.496). Some of the manifestations of

conflict behaviour are expressing disagreement with the opponent, yelling, verbal abuse,

indifference and interference.

2.1.6. TYPES OF CONFLICT

Conflict may be classified on the basis of its sources or on the basis of organizational level.

2.1.6.1. CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO THE SOURCE OF CONFLICT

AFFECTIVE CONFLICT

According to Afzalur, R.M (2011:p 19) affective conflict occurs when two interacting social

entities while trying to solve a problem together, become aware that their feelings and emotions

regarding some or all issues to the conflict are incompatible. This category of conflict is labelled

psychological conflict, relationship conflict, emotional conflict or interpersonal conflict. In this

PSC study, research will strive to link the particular type of conflict to the work place to

determine its impact on the work results and the individual responsiveness and resilience to

conflict situations to determine the impact of conflict on the effectiveness of service delivery by

the public service employees.

SUBSTANTIVE CONFLICT

Afzalur R.M (2011, P. 19) precises that substantive conflict occurs when two or more

organizational members disagree on their task or content issues. Jehn (1997) cited by Afzalur

characterised this type of conflict as ―disagreements among group members’ ideas and opinions

about the task being performed, such as disagreement regarding an organization’s current

strategic position or determining the correct data to include in a report.‖(P. 19). This type of

conflict is labelled task conflict, cognitive conflict and issues conflict. This implies that

individuals or parties to the conflict have no particular disagreements related to individual

conduct but different perceptions on the nature of tasks and approaches to performing assigned

8

tasks to produce results. This type of conflict is more common in daily life of humans where

work progress is subject to individual cooperation to effectively and efficiently produce results.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

According to Afzalur R.M (2011, P. 21).this type of conflict occurs when each party sharing the

same understanding of the situation, prefers a different and somewhat incompatible solution to a

problem involving either a distribution of scarce resources between them or a decision to share

the task of solving it. Common practice in the Public Service Sector points to where senior staff

directs juniors but remain behind to observe how the young staff struggle with performance to

meet targets and produce results. When such targets become untenable, the senior staff returns to

the juniors for the blame.

CONFLICT OF VALUES

According to Afzalur R.M (2011, P. 21), this conflict occurs when two social entities differ in

their values or ideologies on certain issues or aspects. This is also called ideological conflict.

This conflict may affect employees work relationships when their ideological beliefs collide with

institutional work requirements. A case in point in Rwanda where law requires public servants to

swear prior to assuming their responsibilities may conflict with employees whose spiritual

beliefs do not permit them to take oath.

GOALS CONFLICT

According to Afzalur R.M (2011, P. 22).this conflict occurs when a preferred outcome or an end-

state of two social entities becomes incompatible. When one party perceives its interests to fall

victim of denigration by the other party, victimisation perception arises and then conflict occurs.

One can say that in a workplace the uniting factor in the employee employer relationship is

salary on service delivery agreement. When either party feels that its interests are being

threatened or undermined, suspicion and mistrust crops up where the perceived victim feels

intentionally despised by the non-victimized party. In such suspicious relationships only

cooperation in search for solution can save the parties from escalating the conflict.

9

REALISTIC VERSUS NON-REALISTIC CONFLICT

According to Afzalur R.M (2011, P. 22).The former refers to incompatibilities that have a

rational content (i.e tasks, goals, values, and means and ends). Non-realistic conflict occurs as a

result of a party’s need for releasing tension and expressing hostility, ignorance or error. This

type is similar to intrinsic and extrinsic conflicts. In the context work place however, research

will focus on realistic conflicts to determine the actual causes and their impact on the parties and

their interests. In this perspective research will be able to provide proactive recommendations for

solving conflicts at workplace.

RETRIBUTIVE CONFLICT

According to Afzalur R.M (2011, P. 21), retributive conflict is characterized by a situation where

the conflicting entities feel the need for drawn- out conflict to punish the opponent. In this

aspect, each party determines its gains, in part, by incurring the cost of pursuing the punitive

ways to the other party. This theory suggests that parties to the conflict may opt for all possible

options leading to harming the other party morally, economically, and physically to mention a

few. In the context of the workplace, the employee—employer conflict may result in prolonged

court battles draining either party’s coffers in pursuit of punitive measures to implicitly tell the

other party of the adversary’s powers to pursue the incompatible goal. The PSC can precisely

attest to this assumption through its reports on received claims and appeals.

MISATTRIBUTED CONFLICT

According to Afzalur R.M (2011, P. 22).this is related to the incorrect assignment or attribution

of causes (behaviours, parties, or issues) to conflicts. The parties misattribute conflict causes to

wrong factors, elements, parties, name them. The point here is that conflict occurs where either

party lacks the truth required by the assumed victim to de-escalate conflict and cooperate in

finding a durable solution.

10

DISPLACED CONFLICT

According to Afzalur R.M (2011, P. 21),this type of conflict occurs when the conflicting parties

either direct their frustrations or hostilities to other parties that are not involved in the conflict or

argue over secondary factors and not major issues or real causes of conflict.

2.1.6.2. CLASSIFICATION BASED ON LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

Afzalur M.R (2011, pp 22-23) has classified organizational conflict based on the level of

analysis. In this context, conflict may be classified as intra-organizational (i.e within

organization) or inter-organizational (conflict between two or more organizations). Intra-

organizational conflict may also be classified on the basis of level: individual, groups, etc. On

this basis, intra-organizational conflict may be classified as intrapersonal, interpersonal, and

intra-group and inter-groups. Severally, intra-party conflict may affect the organisation where the

grieved employee pursues restoration of the harmed interests against the will of the organisation

to which the employee serves.

INTRAPERSONAL CONFLICT

According to Afzalur, M.R (2011, p. 22), intrapersonal conflict is also known as intra-individual

or intra-psychic conflict. This is a conflict that happens inside the person’s conscience. It occurs

when an organizational member is required to perform certain tasks and roles that do not match

the employee’s expertise, interests, goals, and values and prompts the concerned party to rebel

against the given orders. Going with this assumption, one can note that PSC reports on claims

and appeals confirm this perspective where employees disagree with their employers and seek

PSC guidance on the borne contention.

INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT

Afzalur, M.R (2011, p. 23) states that interpersonal conflict is also known as dyadic conflict. It

refers to the conflict between two or more organizational members of the same or different

hierarchical levels or units. The conflict between the two entities happen when one party

trespasses the interests of the other and efforts to settling such a dispute remain uncooperative.

11

INTERGROUP CONFLICT

Afzalur, M.R (2011, p. 23) also identifies intergroup conflict as interdepartmental conflict. It

refers to conflict between two or more units or groups within an organization. Conflict between

headquarter and field staff, labour and leaders or management are examples. Fortunately, over

the years, PSC has received few group complaints indicating misunderstanding with the

employer. However, this is the tip-off that conflict can unfold in various aspects which PSC

needs to equip itself with skills to sort out such conflicts before their escalation.

2.1.6.3. CLASSIFICATION BASED ON THE IMPACT OF CONFLICT

Based on the realistic view of intergroup conflict, as stated by Gibson, Ivancevich and Donnelly

(1994, p. 337), a conflict is inevitable in organizations. To prevent conflict leading to strikes or

employment tribunal claims you need to intervene as soon as possible.

However, those authors affirmed that because conflict can be both a positive and a negative

force, management should not strive to eliminate all conflict, only that which has disruptive

effects on the organization’s efforts to achieve the intended goals. When the conflict is viewed

from the positive perspective, it is known as functional conflict while the negative side of it is

regarded as dysfunctional conflict. Constructive conflict catalyses development because it

facilitates interactions between various parties in the system and sustains creative ideas that

permit and information exchange for a shared goal or interest.

FUNCTIONAL CONFLICT

Some type or degree of conflict may prove beneficial if it is used as an instrument for change or

innovation. In this way, functional and dysfunctional conflicts can be observed within the

institution. As defined by Gibson, Ivancevich and Donnelly (1994, p.338), a functional conflict is

a confrontation between groups that enhances and benefits the organization’s performance. For

example, two departments in a hospital institution may conflict over the most efficient method of

delivering health care to low-income rural families. The two departments agree on the goal but

not on the means to achieve it. Whatever the outcome, low-income families will probably end up

with better medical care once the conflict is settled. In this perspective, without such conflict in

institutions, there would be little commitment to change; most groups would probably become

stagnant.

12

DYSFUNCTIONAL CONFLICT

According to Gibson, Ivancevich and Donnelly (1994), a dysfunctional conflict is ―any

confrontation or interaction between groups that harms the organisation or hinders the

achievement of organizational goals‖ p.338. In this aspect, management must seek possible ways

to eliminate such conflicts and sustain healthy relationships between the parties.

2.1.7. CONFLICT AND INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE

Gibson, Ivancevich and Donnelly (1994, p 338) affirmed that conflict may have either a positive

or a negative impact on the institutional performance depending on the nature of the conflict and

how it is managed. For every institution, an optimal level of conflict exists that can be considered

highly functional: it helps to generate positive performance. Innovation and change generate

resistance and the institution may have difficult in adapting to change in its environment. On the

other hand, if the conflict escalates to unmanageable levels, the resulting chaos can also threaten

the survival of the institution.

2.1.8. CAUSES OF CONFLICT AT WORKPLACE

As identified by Gibson, Ivancevich and Donnelly (1994, p.341), some of the factors that can

cause conflict between individuals and groups at workplace include among others the work

interdependence when two or more organizational groups depend on one another to complete

their tasks, differences in goals, limited resources, reward structures, difference in perceptions,

unfair treatment as well as leadership management aspect.

2.1.9. CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Gibson, Ivancevich and Donnelly (1994, p.348-360 propose some techniques for conflict

resolution. A conflict is resolved when two parties mutually commit to work together towards

attaining the interests of each other. It involves cooperation and compromise. This approach

requires minimal awareness that humans cannot exist without conflict and therefore the need for

skills in conflict resolution; and to settle such conflict requires mutual cooperation on the

outcome. The resolution mechanism is very essential in the daily life of employees seeking to

harmonize relationships to achieve organizational results. Failing to solve conflict can lead to

disastrous results.

13

2.1.10. CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION

Even though conflict is resolved, the impact persists because processes and procedures that

facilitated its occurrence still remain in place; thus the need to transform conflict into productive

dialogues that mutually involves parties to the conflict.

According to John Paul Lederach (2012), conflict transformation envisions opportunities for

turning disagreements into agreements, incompatibilities into common understanding for

constructive change. However, conflict transformation is a long-term, gradual process,

demanding sustained engagement and interaction. This is where PSC comes in to play a

significant role of training leaders and managers in public service in conflict management skills,

processes and procedures leading to conflict transformation at work place.

2.2. LEGAL REGIMES PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Several laws emerge in this arena. In a bid to manage conflicts in Public institutions, the

Government of Rwanda has enacted laws and regulations to facilitate processes and procedures

for mutual engagement between conflicting parties to sort out their differences. The primary

aspect of the legal regime entails the:

Law no 86/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the general statutes for public service. Under this

law, Conflict occurrence and employee rights are catered for in Article 83 which determines the

rights of a public servant to appeal against unsatisfactory claims. When the employee is not

satisfied with the ruling Article 85 outlines the procedures for filing a complaint with the courts

of law.

Similarly, a Presidential Order Nº46/01 of 29/07/2011 governing modalities for recruitment,

appointment and nomination of public servants determines the processes and modalities for

implementation of this order in the public service sector. Article 16 details the process of appeal

in case a prospective employee feels victimised under one of these procedures and processes.

Presidential Order Nº 17/01 of 23/01/2013 establishing the job classification in Rwanda Public

Service implicitly tells the public how the state solves grievances emanating from job

classification, in case the interested party seeks redress from relevant institutions and authorities

as a venue provided to mutually resolve the prevailing conflict.

14

The Prime Minister’s Order N° 92/03 of 01/03/2013 modifying and complementing the Prime

Minister’s Order no 53/03 of 14/07/2012 establishing salaries and fringe benefits for public

servants of the Central Government, and the Prime Minister’s Order N°121/03 of 08/09/2010

establishing the procedure of performance appraisal and promotion of public servants and

ministerial order n° 19/19 dated 08/07/2003, concerning training procedures for Rwanda civil

servants, all provide modalities for sorting out grievances and conflicts that may erupt within the

public service as a result of the dissatisfied claimants.

The government is aware that undefined work responsibilities cause conflicts between junior and

senior staff when it comes to evaluation time, which heavily costs the government when such

conflicts end up in dismissal of one of the parties to the conflict. This is why, in its definition of

the performance appraisal, the law was clear to state that: The Prime Minister Order says that;

―Performance appraisal is a process used to appraise public Servant’s outputs in line with his/her

duties, based on clearly defined yardsticks, over a given period of time‖ PM Order N°121/03 of

08/09/2010 Art. 3. in the same order, Art. 4 on performance appraisal states that:

―The performance contract shall indicate the quantity, quality and the time required to achieve

the expected results in specified period of time”. This is confirmed in Art. 17 of the same order

which categorizes appraisal stages as comprising four major steps which include:

1. Work plan and identification of the results to be realized;

2. Monitoring of work progress and review after six (6) months;

3. Annual appraisal performance review;

4. Appraisal meeting.

Besides laws and regulations, the Government of Rwanda has put in place the public service

Commission regulated by the law N° 39/2012 of 24/12/2012 whose Art 4 mandates PSC to

verify whether Government institutions comply with laws, regulations and decisions relating to

the management of public service employees. PSC is equally mandated to carry out research on

laws, orders, required qualifications and other aspects related to staff management and

development and on entities providing public services in order to make recommendations to

Government. Based on this Article 4 the PSC analyses the workplace conflict in order to provide

the government with useful recommendations related to conflict management at public

workplace.

15

It is polite to note that the presidential order No 65/01 0f 04/03/2014 determining modalities for

imposing disciplinary sanctions to public servants emanates from the realisation that the public

service employees require guidance on self-conduct and professional performance, failure of

which attracts disciplinary measures. This order reminds PSC that human behaviour is such that

a person cannot live without mistakes, which might even manifest at workplace; hence, the need

to conduct an assessment on the conflicts at work place and advise the government accordingly.

This implies that much as the government facilitates conflict resolution mechanisms, it also

provides for penalties to non-compliant employees. From Art 10 to Art 16, the Presidential Order

determines the professional mistakes and the corresponding penalties.

Despite many laws coming in place, several institutions continue to commit mistakes costing the

government a lot of money. This is caused by several factors including but not limited to:

2.2.1. DISCREPANCY IN LAWS:

Several aspects in various laws cause conflict due to unclear definitions that facilitate conflict

causes. This can be explained under the following examples;

Article 3 (3): of PM Order N°121/03 OF 08/09/2010 says ―Performance appraisal is a process

used to appraise public servant’s outputs in line with his/her duties, based on clearly defined

yardsticks, over a given period of time‖. This is provided to set clarity in evaluating employees’

performance; this is contradicted by Article 14 which states that:

“The appraisal of skills and conduct at work of Managers, Experts and Professionals shall be

based on the following: (1) the ability to plan; (2) Decision making capacity; (3) Sense of

motivation; (4) Ability to communicate; (5) Coordination and supervisory capabilities”. These

foregoing indicators are not SMART and therefore, create room for irrational supervisors and

managers to create subjectivity during performance appraisal. This is equally seen in Article 23

which sets SMART indicators but contradicted by Art 15 which also sets non SMART indicators

for measuring skills and conduct for technicians and support staff. A case in point, a good sense

of customer care or openness towards the idea of others is some examples of non measureable

indicators set in Art 15 that can easily cause subjectivity during performance appraisal. This gap

leads to a halo error, where managers base their evaluation on general appreciation of the

employee conduct and performance on personal impression of the employee as good or bad,

positive or negative depending on the pervious perception.

16

2.2.2. MANAGERS’ PERSONAL MISCONDUCT

Leaders, supervisors and managers refuse to implement laws intentionally due to personal

interests. For instance, Article 17of PM Order No 121/03 of 8/9/2010 reflects stages for

performance appraisal; however, according to data available from the field, monitoring of work

progress and review after six months is not conducted. Similarly, stage four which calls for

appraisal meeting between the employee and supervisor is not conducted and this results into

managers awarding arbitrary marks to employees thereby causing conflicts. This leads the

managers to fall into the trap of recency error, where evaluators use only the last few weeks or

month of a rating period as evidence of their ratings of others.

2.2.3. PERSONAL BIAS

When evaluation criteria is not clearly defined, it creates room for evaluators to become biased

(tendency to be base judgment on personal feelings –subjective) towards what they are

evaluating and make the process more subjective. In normal process, evaluation criteria awards

marks to each item, prior to performance, to enable evaluators to award marks in agreement with

the employee. Where marks are not attributed prior to performance, the evaluator develops a

tendency to award marks based on personal feelings, and raise conflicts due to dissatisfaction

from the side of the employee being evaluated.

STEREOTYPING ERROR

This stereotyping evaluation error is where the evaluator mentally classifies a person into an

affinity (like mindedness) group, and then identifies the person as having the same assumed

characteristics as the group. When evaluation is based on perceived characteristics of the

employee rather than the set criteria, disagreements emerge between the employee and

supervisor and later on the employee and the institution if the grievance is not settled early in

time. In short, one can suitably say that behaviours and results which occur over the entire

course of the evaluation period are typically the best criteria to use in the process of evaluating

an individual’s performance; so we shouldn’t limit the appraisal process to one or two actions on

the part of that individual employee. By evaluating multiple criteria, we have the ability to lower

the incidence of halo, recency, contrast, and attribution errors, and may even be able to affect

bias and stereotyping, because of many criteria, not just one or two, are being analysed.

17

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

In this part, we describe the methodology of the study as well as specific tools of data collection

and analyse data. In this line, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. For

Quantitative data, statistical methods to determine the sample size were used in order to try to

minimize study bias and maximizing generalizability by ensuring that the sample accurately

reflects the larger population from which they drew it. For collecting qualitative data, as stated

by Neergaard and Parm Ulhoi (2007), ―qualitative research does not aim to ensure

representativeness, but rather the field under study yields substantive information that will

contribute to elucidate the problem issue” (p.270).

3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN

The figure 1 illustrates the research design that allowed the consultant to perform the assignment.

Figure no 1: Research design

Dependent Variable Independent Variable Operationalization

Indicators formulation

Sample design

Data collection method

Training of enumerators

Pre-test

Field Data collection

Data processing and

Analysis

Reporting

Conflicts

Impacts of conflicts

Employees’ behaviour

Institutional culture

Leadership management

Recruitment and Placement

Harassment

External influence

Individual level

Institutional

To clarify the role of PSC:

- Mandate of PSC

- Role of PSC towards other

Institutions

- Achievement of PSC

Source: Researcher own design

18

3.2. DATA COLLECTION

The following techniques were used to collect secondary and primary data.

3.2.1. SECONDARY DATA

3.2.1.1. ANALYSIS OF DOCUMENTS

The Secondary data were collected through Desk review. In order to collect secondary data on

cause and impact of conflict in public institutions various documents, other studies, and reports

related to the conflict in work place as well as laws and regulations established to regulate the

conflict at workplace in public institutions were consulted.

Among those documents include but not limited to the following:

Other studies

Assessment of Citizens’ Satisfaction on Recruitment Practices in Rwandan Public

Institutions

Study on Challenges Faced by Government Institutions while implementing Human

Resource Laws and Regulations.

Policy:

National employment policy elaborated in 2007

Policy framework for Rwanda’s civil service reform elaborated in 2002

Rwanda public sector pay and retention policy and implementation strategy

Laws and regulations:

Law n°86/2013 of 11/09/2013 establishing the general statutes for public service

Law n°39/2012 of 24/12/2012 determining the responsibilities, organisation and

functioning of the Public Service Commission

19

Presidential order nº46/01 of 29/07/2011 governing modalities for the recruitment,

appointment and nomination of public servants

Presidential order nº 17/01 of 23/01/2013 establishing the job classification in Rwanda

public service

Prime minister’s order n° 92/03 of 01/03/2013 modifying and complementing the prime

minister’s order no 53/03 of 14/07/2012 establishing salaries and fringe benefits for

public servants of the central government

Prime minister’s order n°121/03 of 08/09/2010 establishing the procedure of performance

appraisal and promotion of public servants

Ministerial order n° 19/19 dated 08/07/2003, concerning training procedures for Rwanda

civil servants.

Report

Public Service Commission Report: 2012-2013, 2011-2014, 2010-2011

3.2.1.2. ANALYSIS OF HISTORICAL RECORDS:

Various records of complaints related to conflict occurred during the period between 2009 to

2013.Among those records include complaints received by Public Service Commission during

2009 up to 2013 and judgement record from Nyarugenge High Court

3.2.2. PRIMARY DATA

The primary data were collected by using questionnaire and interview guide.

3.2.2.1. QUESTIONNAIRE

Primary data were collected through schedules: Under this method the enumerators were

appointed and given training. According to Kothari (2004, p 104), this method of collection data

through schedules lies in the fact that schedules (proforma containing a set of questions) are

being filled by the enumerators who are especially appointed for the purpose. These enumerators

20

went to the respondents with these schedules. Data were collected by filling up the schedules by

enumerators on the basis of replies work of the enumerators may ensure sincere work.

In order to collect primary data, a questionnaire elaborated was used. This questionnaire was

used by enumerators and filled through face to face interview. The respondents provided

information for each item of questionnaire and the enumerator him/herself filled the

questionnaire using the same words used by the respondents.

In order to have answers very precise without vagueness and ambiguity, structured questionnaire

was preferable.

The participants who responded to the questionnaire were 582 employees selected among the

292 public institutions.

3.2.2.2. INTERVIEW GUIDE

An interview guide was elaborated and allowed the facilitator to focus on the objectives of this

study. The in-depth interview was conducted with PSC employees in charge of complaints

analysis, PSC authorities, managers of public institutions and leaders in sampled Districts.

3.2.2.3. SNAW BALL TECHNIQUE

Morgan (2008,), ―Snowball sampling uses a small pool of initial informants to nominate, through

their social networks, other participants who meet the eligibility criteria and could potentially

contribute to a specific study. p.816

This technique was used to identify the employees dismissed due to workplace conflict.

According to

3.2.3. SAMPLING

3.2.3.1. SAMPLING TECHNIQUES

PURPOSIVE SAMPLING

In order to get relevant information related to causes and impact of conflict at workplace, we

used purposive or deliberative sampling. According to KOTHARI (2004:15), this sampling

method involves purposive or deliberate selection of particular participants in the universe for

constituting a sample which represents the universe.

21

These techniques were used to select the

Managers of institutions

Directors,

Human resources in each institution sampled

RANDOM SAMPLING

The random sampling was used to select the employees who responded to the questionnaire.

According to KOTHARI (2004:15), this technique has an advantage to collect unbiased

information whereby each one of the possible samples, in case of finite universe, has the same

probability of being selected.

3.2.4. SAMPLE SIZE.

The sample size refers to the number of items to be selected from the universe to constitute a

sample. In determining the sample design, one must consider the question of the specific

population parameters which are of interest. (KOTHARI (2004:56). In this way, we are

interested on employees working in public institutions.

The following formula was used to determine the sample size

Source: Yamane (1967:886)

Where n is the sample size, N is the population size, and e is the level of precision.

In this formula, considered the level of precision of ±5 percent, the confidence level to be

considered is 95%. This means that 95 out of 100 samples will have the true population value

within the range of precision of ±5 percent.

22

Table no 1: Number of Public institutions

Categories Number of institutions

1 Ministries 18

2 Public institutions 56

3 Provinces and City of Kigali 5

4 Districts 30

5 Higher Learning Institutions 8

6 Secondary schools 415

7 Hospital 44

8 Sectors 416

Total 1071

Source: Retrieved from www.primature.gov.rw

The sample size is obtained by using Yamane Formula as stated above. Applying the formula,

we have the following sample size.

In order to select the sample in each stratum, the following calculation allowed having the

proportion by using the sampling fraction as follows: the total public institutions are 1071

employees. The sample size is 292, then, the ratio is 292/1071 =0.271.

Applying the ratio to the population in each stratum, I got a sample size as indicated in the table

no 3

1071

n =

1+ 1071(0.05)2

= 292

http://www.primature.gov.rw/

23

Table no 2: Public institutions sampled

SN Categories Number of

institutions

Sample size

1 Ministries 18 6

2 Public institutions 56 15

3 Provinces 4 1

City of Kigali 1 1

4 Districts 30 9

5 Higher Learning Institutions 8 2

6 Sectors 416 112

8 Hospital 44 12

9 Health centres 495 133

Total 1071 292


This study involved 292 public institutions over 1071 which represent 27%.

To obtain the proportion for each institution the researcher used the ratio of 0.27 yet calculated.

3.2.5. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS

For each institution, except responsible of Sectors and Health Centers, the manager and the

human resources Director was subject to the in-depth interview.

In addition, in each public institution sampled, two employees were selected to answer the

questionnaire and the gender aspect was taken into account.

24

Table no 3: Disaggregation of respondents by techniques used

Public Institutions Sample size Interview Questionnaire

Ministries 6 6 12

Government Agencies 15 15 30

Provinces & City of Kigali 3 0 4

Districts 9 9 18

Higher Learning Institutions 2 2 4

Sectors 112 0 224

Hospital 12 12 24

Health centres 133 266

Employee dismissed 6

Total 292 50 582


In each public institution, 2 employees chosen randomly responded to the questionnaire whereas

the Permanent Secretaries for each public institution sampled will have a personal interview.

Permanent Secretaries are chosen purposively because they have enough information on causes

of conflict in their institutions.

3.3. SELECTION & TRAINING OF ENUMERATORS

The method of collecting data through questionnaire involved the enumerators. The enumerators

were trained to perform this assignment and were carefully selected among those who had

experience in data collection. The training of enumerators allowed them to understand the

pertinence of this survey and the implication of each question in this survey.

The enumerator had a good understanding of all questions so that collecting data will be easy and

getting fairly reliable data. All enumerators were able to interpret in the same way the question

when the respondents have confusion. In this case, the information collected in complete and

accurate as the enumerators help respondents understand the question correctly.

As enumerators are appointed, researchers are ensured that all questionnaires to be returned and

information to be collected on time due to the direct personal contact established between

enumerator and respondents.

25

3.4. PRETEST

The pre-test of questionnaire was conducted in one public institution (KIE) that is not on the

sample in order to check whether respondents might have difficulties on responding to the

questions. This led to the remodelling of the questionnaire and adapts it to the targeted

participants in this study. The questionnaire was also pretested for its relevant and validity

aspects.

3.5. DATA PROCESSING

3.6. DATA CODING

By formulating questionnaire, the answers were assigned a number in order to prepare them for

data entry.

3.7. DATA ENTRY

After collecting data through questionnaires, data were captured in computer using different

following statistical software

1. CSPro was used for data capturing as it is user friendly software to use for entering

census and survey data. The data were put into SPSS for further analysis.

2. SPSS was used for further analysis. We calculated indicators and tabulated by using

crosstab and custom table and other SPSS facilities to do descriptive and other statistical

analysis required to produce the report.

3. Microsoft EXCELL helped us to calculate some indicators.

3.8. DATA CLASSIFICATION

The collected data were classified. The classification and tabulation of the raw data helped for

further analysis and interpretation.

The classification allowed us to avoid unnecessary data, facilitated comparison and enabled

analysis in this research.

We used quantitative classification by taking into account the variable that can be measured

The data captured were classified into discrete series and continuous series and getting the

number of observations corresponding to a particular class.

26

3.9. DATA TABULATION

Data were arranged in columns and rows. This tabulation was used to simplify the presentation

and facilitated the comparison.

The tables depend on the combination of variables to be shown and compared.

3.10. DIAGRAMMATIC AND DATA PRESENTATION

When the data were put in different tables and data were presented by using diagrams and

graphs.

These techniques allowed the users to have a clear picture of data and have an easy

understandable presentation.

The graphs and diagrams helped to have more understandable information.

Various diagrams including bar diagrams and pie diagrams were used.

Data were also presented graphically whereby the focus was put on frequency distribution.

3.11. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

After using statistical techniques, data were analysed and interpreted and the report was

produced. The analysis took into account the statistical distribution for quantitative analysis and

content for qualitative data.

3.12. REPORTING

The survey report was produced taking into account the analysis and interpretation of the

captured and processed data.

27

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS

4.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY POPULATION

This study involved various categories of employees. The emphasis below is predominantly put

on the following aspects describing demographic factors such as sex¸ age, civil status, level of

education, employment rank and working experience.

4.1.1. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY SEX

This study involved both males and females. As it is indicated in the figure no 2; males who

responded to questionnaires represent 57.6% (335 employees) whereas females represent

42.4%.(247 employees ).

Figure no 2: Distribution of respondents by sex

Source: Field data, 2014

28

4.1.2. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY AGE

These sub-section deals with respondents to questionnaires by range group as it is indicated in

the figure no 3.

Figure no 3: Distribution of respondents by age


The majority of respondents (311 employees) which represent 53.4% were between 31 and 40

years. In the same perspective, 22.5% of respondents (131 employees) were between 21 and 30

years while 20.6% of respondents (120 employees) were between 41 and 50 years. 3.5% of

respondents (20 employees) were between 51 and 65 years.

4.1.3. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY CIVIL STATUS

The figure no

4 below indicates that 75.3% of respondents (438 employees) were married; 21.3%

of respondents (124 employees) were single, 2% of respondents (12 employees) were

widows/widowers, 0.9 % (5 employees) were in religious functions whereas 0.5% (3 employees)

were divorced. Thus, the study involved vairous categories of people with varrying civil status.

29

Figure no 4: Distribution of respondents by civil status


4.1.4. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY LEVEL OF EDUCATION

As it is indicated in figure no 5, a proportion of 49.6% of respondents (290 employees) had

Bachelor’s Degree. 24.6 % of respondents (143 employees) had diploma, 19.8% (115employees)

had certificates of senior 6. Other 5% of respondents (29 employees) completed primary school,

0.5 % of respondents (3 employees) have senior 3, Masters Degree (0.2%) (1 employee), PhD

(0.2%) (1 employee), and 0.2% of respondents (1 employee) is illiterate. Thus, the majority of

respondents who responded to questionnaires had Bachelors Degree and very few respondents

had Masters Degree and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD).

30

Figure no 5: Distribution of respondents by level of education


4.1.5. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY EMPLOYMENT RANK

The distribution of respondents by employment rank, figure no 6 indicates that 63.9% of

respondents (372 employees) were professional staff, 31,1% of respondents (181 employees)

were leaders of institutions whereas 5% of respondents (29 employees) were the support staff.

Thus, the majority of respondents were the technicians.

Figure no 6: Distribution of respondents by employment rank


31

4.1.6. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY WORKING EXPERIENCE

As it is indicated in the figure no 7, the majority of respondents (311 employees) which represent

53.6% had less than 5 years working experience, 34.2% (199 employees) had between 5 and 10

years working experience, 8.6% (50 employees) had between 10 and 15 whereas 3.6% (22

employees) had more than 15 years of working experience.

Figure no

7: Distribution of respondents by working experience


32

4.2. EXISTENCE OF CONFLICT AT WORKPLACE

Before assessing the cause of conflict at workplace and its impact, it is relevant firstly to assess

the existence of the conflict at workplace and its frequency as well as its intensity.

4.2.1. DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES WHO FACED CONFLICT AT

WORKPLACE

Figure no 8: Employees who experienced conflict at workplace


Available data in figure no 8 indicates that 24.4 % of respondents (142 employees) experienced

conflicts at their workplace whereas 75.6% of respondents (440 employees) said that they did not

individually experience conflicts at workplace. This foregoing statement however, should not be

confused with nonexistence of conflict at work place because conflict is part of our daily lives.

The percentage figure of those who experienced conflict shows a significant no 24.4% which

requires institutional commitment to solving staff conflicts to ensure institutional progress.

Therefore, the study is very significant and relevant in determining the cause, and impact of such

conflicts, not only to the institution but also the individual employees. In this context, conflict is

a fact of life; you cannot live without conflict but you can manage conflict. Sandra D. Collins

opines that ―If you want to avoid conflict at work, you can. All you have to do is to find a job that

does not require you to have any contact with people. If you think that might be difficult for you,

then I have some bad news: you are experiencing conflict”. (2009)

33

4.2.2. DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES WHO FACED CONFLICT AT

WORKPLACE

This study has revealed that all categories of employees faced conflict at workplace as indicate in

the table no 4.

Table no 4: Distribution of employees who faced conflict at their workplace.

Categories

Percentage Frequency

(N=142)

Sex Male 49 69

Female 51 73

Age 20-30 years 16 23

31-40 years 23 33

41-50 Years 23 33

51-65 years 38 53

Civil status Single 28 40

Married 37 52

Widow/ widower 35 50

Level of education Primary 14 20

Senior 3 26 37

A2 25 36

A1 17 24

A0 18 25

Employment rank Leaders 41 58

Professional 27 38

Support staff 32 46

Workplace Ministries 35 50

Public agencies 18 26

District 35 50

Sector 12 16


34

The table no 4 distributes various categories of employees who have faced conflict at workplace.

These categories are segregated by sex, 49% (285 employees) Male and 51% (297 employees)

females who responded that they faced conflict at workplace. This indicates that conflict

manifests itself in all categories of employees. However, the age group indicates that those who

faced conflict most ranged between 51 and 65 years of age; impliedly, these are senior

employees with various responsibilities beyond work. Take an example of females whose high

percentage has faced conflict; they are the most susceptible to requesting absence leave to attend

to family matters than men. They are susceptible to health conditions requiring them to frequent

health centres to seek medical examinations than men and sexual harasment All these are

contributing factors making females susceptible to conflicting with institutions’ mangement for

various reasons.

On the age group, the majority of employees who faced conflict at workplace aged between 51 to

65 years. In the ordinary circumstances, a general student graduating from the university comes

out when the person is aged between 21 and 25 years. Taking an example of an employee aged

51 years, it means the person has a working exeprience of 26 years. The probability of facing

conflict at workplace is high depending on their longevity service. This is an influential group

that is susceptible to conflicting with senior management when they disobey orders to execute

certain tasks they are required to and are not confortable with.

According to the their civil status, 37% of respondents (215 employees) were married while 35%

of respondents (204 employees) were widows/ widowers, and 28% of respondents (163

employees). were singles. When you combine the married and widows category you get a

whoping 72% of employees. This percentage indicates that employees with family

responsibilities tend to have many problemes associated with family management. These

combined responsibilities cause friction between manmagement and the concerned employees

that always come with justifictaions as to why they did not meet set work targets, or were absent

from work, or they want leave to mention but a few.

According to the employees’ rank, 41% (239 employees) among the, supervisors (27% (157

employees) professional staffs as well as 32% (186 employees) of support staff faced conflict at

the workplace. This scenario indicates that supervisors often meet conflicts at workplace because

they come in contact with junior staff several times requesting effective performance to meet

35

targets. They also face external influences in their day to day activities which impacts their

response to work challenges and their resistance to external influences leads them into conflict

with senior management in their institutions.

In conclusion, all categories of employees have faced conflict at the workplace in one way or

another. This gives an opportunity to establish mechnaisms for creative conflict management to

nurture constructive ideas for sustained change and development.

4.2.3. PERCEPTION OF EMPLOYEES ON TYPES OF CONFLICTS

In this study, different types of conflict that occur at workplace in public service sector were

pointed out in the figure no 9. Those types of conflict are related to interpersonal, intragroup as

well as intergroup conflicts.

Figure no 9: Perception of employees on types of conflict that occur at workplace


The main types of conflicts are inter-group conflicts, intragroup conflicts, and interpersonal

conflicts. As it is shown in the figure no 9, a proportion of 67% of respondents (390 employees)

said that they faced interpersonal conflicts, 22% of respondents (128 employees) faced intra-

group conflicts whereas 11% of respondents (64 employees) said that they faced inter-groups

conflicts. From, the percentages in the figure no 9, it is noted that people face various types of

conflict. In personal interviews with participants, it was revealed that one person can face various

36

types of conflicts at the same time. For example, one person can face interpersonal, intra-

personal, inter-group and intra-group conflicts. However the most common of all is the

interpersonal conflict.

This indicates that individuals often clash with each other on work relationship or seniority

relationship.

4.2.4. PERCEPTION OF EMPLOYEES ON FREQUENCY OF CONFLICTS AT

WORKPLACE

The frequency of conflict at work place is reflected by the figure no 10.

Figure no 10: Perception of employees on frequency of conflicts at workplace

Source: field data, 2014

Among the respondents who filled the questionnaire, 74, 9% (435 employees) asserted that

conflicts at workplace occur sometimes while 5.6% of respondents (32 employees) said that

conflicts at workplace happen often and 16.7% of respondents (97 employees) said that they

have never met conflicts at workplace. 2.8% of respondents (17 employees) said that they don’t

know anything about conflicts that occur at workplace. Thus, the majority of respondents are of

the view that conflict sometimes happens but not often. This agreement implies that mechanisms

37

have been put in place to deal rising conflicts at workplace on case by case basis. But those who

perceive conflicts as happening often, either they have conflicting mentalities that inhibit them

from seeing progressive work aspects or they are part of the conflict and do not see how it should

end. That is to say those strategies for dealing with conflicts that happen sporadically need to be

developed and put in place to ensure constructive engagement for sustainable work progress.

4.2.5. DEGREE OF INTENSITY OF CONFLICT AT WORKPLACE

Figure no 11: Perception of employees on the degree of intensity of conflicts at workplace


The figure no 11 shows that 68.2% of respondents (397 employees) revealed that conflicts that

occur at workplace are less intense whereas 29.6% of respondents (172 employees) said that

conflicts with moderate intensity occur at workplace. The remaining 2.2% of respondents (13

employees) asserted that at workplace there are conflicts with high intensity.

38

4.2.6. CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES EXPOSED TO CONFLICT AT WORKPLACE

At workplace, conflict occurs between the leaders and the employees, individual employees,

between leaders themselves as well as between groups of employees as shown in the table no 5.

Table no 5: Perception on categories of employees where conflicts mostly occur

Categories Percentage Frequency

Between the leaders and the employees 51 297

Between individual employees 36 210

Between the leaders team itself 8 46

Between groups of employees 5 29

Total 100 582


During the research, 51% of respondents (297 employees) asserted that conflicts most occur

between the leaders and the employees. As it is indicated in the table no 5, this can be traced

from leaders’ demands on employees’ performance targets. 36% of respondents (210 employees)

revealed that conflicts occur between individual employees. This can be equally traced on

personal behaviour since each employee tasks are clearly defined to permit performance with

less dependency on other staff, except on supportive roles like procurement while 8 % of

respondents (46 employees) said that conflicts occur between the leadership itself. The

remaining 5% of respondents (29 employees) agreed that conflicts at workplace mostly occur

between groups of employees.

39

4.2.7. CONFLICTS AT DISTRICT LEVEL

At District level, conflict occurs between the executive Secretariat and the executive committee,

between District council and executive committee as well as between executive committee and

security committee.

Table no 6: Perception of employees on the existence of conflicts at district level

Conflict at District level Percentage Frequency

Between the Executive Secretariat and the executive Committee 83 219

Between the District Council and the executive committee 15 40

Between Executive Committee and Security Committee 2 5

Total 100 264


As it is indicated in the table no 6, respondents 83% represented by 219 employees reported that

conflicts at district level occurs between the Executive Secretariat and the executive committee.

In the same context, 15% of respondents (40 employees) asserted that conflicts occur between

the District council and the executive committee whereas 2% of respondents (5 employees) said

that conflicts occur between executive committee and security committee. Thus, at district level,

conflicts occur among various categories of people.

4.3. CAUSES OF CONFLICT AT WORKPLACE

There are many causes of conflicts at workplace. Those causes were assessed taking into account

employees’ behaviours, institutional structure and procedures, leadership management styles,

recruitment and placement of employees, harassment and external influence.

4.3.1. EMPLOYEES’ BEHAVIOURS

The table no 7 points to employees’ conduct, negative criticism and gossip, wrongful accusations,

not accepting personal mistakes, misconduct, abusive language, stressful environment, Envy/

jealous, forged documents, moral corruption and work desertion. The total of employees who

agreed are distributed in three main categories such as Local Government (LG), Central

Government (CG) and Health Centres (HC).

40

Table no 7: Perception of employees on cause of conflict related to employees’ behaviours

Behaviour %Strongly

agree (1)

%Agree

2

Total

%

(1&2)

Frequency Percentage

LG

LG Percentage

CG

CG Percentage

HC

HC %

Disagree

Frequency

Negative

Criticisms and

Gossip

46.6 35.4 82 477 42.6 203 7.8 37 49.6 237 18 105

Denying personal

mistakes

45.5 35.4 80.9 471 43.5 205 8.5 40 48.0 226 19.1 111

Employee’s

Conduct/

Misconduct

37.9 42.5 80.4 468 44.7 209 7.1 33 48.2 226 19.6 114

Stressful

Environment

31.3 44.5 75.8 441 42.4 187 9.1 40 48.5 214 24.2 141

Envy/Jealous 40.5 32.6 73.1 425 40.7 173 9.4 40 49.9 212 26.8 157

Moral Corruption 43.2 29 72.2 420 42.4 178 9.8 41 47.9 201 36.8 162

Wrongful

Accusations

39 29.9 68.9 401 42.9 172 9.7 39 47.4 190 31.1 181

Abusive

Language

31.8 33.5 65.3 380 43.4 165 9.2 35 47.4 180 34.7 202

Work Desertion 27.3 37.1 64.4 375 41.1 154 10.4 39 48.5 182 35.6 207

Professional

Malpractices

22.9 21.6 44.5 259 39.8 103 13.5 35 46.7 121 55.5 323


41

4.3.1.1. NEGATIVE CRITICISMS AND GOSSIP

Research posits that human character dislikes to be gossiped about. Strangely, table 9 reflects

82% (477 employees) of respondents [42.6 in LG, 7.8% in CG and 49.6% in HC] who agreed

that rumours and negative criticisms are sources of conflict at workplace. Such behaviours

comprise of individual traitors conspiring against their colleagues, their leaders or the institution

they work for. Such misconduct betrays the principle of professional secrecy which is enshrined

in the professional oath of public servants. During the in-depth interview one participant narrated

“Kumena amabanga y’akazi, byakuruye amakimbirane hagati y’abayobozi babiri bituma

barwanira mu biro by’Akarere‖. Literally saying, divulging professional secret (work

confidentiality) caused conflict between two leaders in the district and ended up fighting in the

office.

4.3.1.2. DENYING PERSONAL MISTAKES

Offenders do not accept personal mistakes. This is because acceptance comes with guilt, shame

and remorse, elements which presumed suspects shy away from because of fear for the

consequences. During research, 80.9% (471 employees) [43.5% in LG, 8.5% in CG and 48% in

HC] of respondents agreed that presumed offenders resist accepting responsibility for personal

mistakes. This implies that since human nature inhibits fear for consequences of the commission,

conflicts harbour between the presumed offenders and the victims or defenders of justice,

particularly those responsible for effecting administrative punishments the wrongdoers at the

workplace.

4.3.1.3. EMPLOYEE’S CONDUCT/ MISCONDUCT

During research it was reported that individual conduct compatible or incompatible to

professional ethics cause conflicts at workplace in multiple ways. Table no 9 shows 80.4% (468

employees) [44.7% in LG, 7.1% in CG and 48.2% in HC] of respondents who agreed that

individual conduct or misconduct compatible or incompatible to work ethics cause conflicts at

workplace in either positive or negative aspects. Staff whose conduct is compatible to work

ethics often becomes victims of threats, undermining, and denigration from fellow staff whose

conduct is incompatible to work ethics; the latter attach the security and stability of their work to

the conduct of the individual colleagues whose conduct they cannot cope with. (uriya

42

imyitwarire ye yaratuyobeye! Uriya azi kwimenyekanisha mu bayobozi wagirango azasimbura

umuyobozi kumwanya…). Literally saying we have failed to understand the conduct of that

staff; that staff is known for looting for favours within the leadership. You may wonder if the

staff target replacing the leader.

Such negative comments and attributes often lead to stigmatization and internalized conflicts

when directly addressed to the person. They possess the potential of causing conflict at

workplace particularly when they reach intolerable levels. However, 19.6% disagreed with such

conclusions.

4.3.1.4. STRESSFUL ENVIRONMENT

Stressful work environment may cause some employees to act unprofessionally while at work

due to work pressure. 75.8% (441 Employees) of respondents [42.4% in LG, 9.1 in CG and

48.5% in HC] contend that stressful environment is a catalyst to staff reacting unprofessionally

while responding to work demands. Such demands are associated with heavy workload,

supervisors requesting to perform tasks outside the scope of work, lack of sufficient resources to

enable employee execute its tasks, to name a few. These employees become uncooperative and

render unfavourable service as a result of unbearable situation. A case in point, during the in-

depth interview, one of the participants narrated ―igihe kimwe, ari kuwa gatandatu, navuye mu

kazi saa sita z’ijoro; ngeze mu rugo mpita ndyama; ku cyumweru mu gitondo telephone

irampamgara irambwira ngo hari bakinnyi b’abanyarwanda baheze ku kibuga cy’indege Dubai

bagomba gukomeza kujya gukina iburayi ariko nta VISA bafite igaragaza ko bemerewe kujya

muri icyo gihugu. Kubera ko nari ndushye, narongeye ndaryama ngirango hacye mbone uko

nkurikirana iyo dosiye. Nyuma abayobozi banjye baje kubimenya ntarabibabwira, bimviramo

kunyandikira no kunkura ku mwanya nari ndiho nk’umuyobozi‖. Literally saying, this employee

was overstressed by work demands and became non-responsive to untimely work demands

resulting into reprimand and demotion because of unfulfilled tasks.

4.3.1.5. ENVY /JEALOUSY

Weak systems create situations where leaders exploit such institutional gaps to loot for personal

gains, thereby causing envy and jealousy among the employees. 73.1% (431 employees) of

respondents [40.7% in LG, 9.4% in CG and 49.9% in HC] affirmed that jealousy is often visible

43

among staff and causes conflict at workplace. During the in-depth interview, one of the

participants said “bamwe mu bakozi biyegereza abayobozi bakoresheje guharabika abandi

bagirango babone imyanya myiza cyangwa ngo bakundwe; abayobozi nabo biyegereza bamwe

mu bakozi bagirango bamenye amakuru abavugwaho mu kigo cyangwa ngo barengere inyungu

zabo” This is to say that some employees seek preferential favours from the superiors through

attribution of libel and blackmail to their colleagues; similarly, the superiors seek rental

patronage among juniors through preferential treatment thereby creating jealousy and fuelling

conflicts at workplace among the so called privileged and those perceived to be disadvantaged

employees.

4.3.1.6. MORAL CORRUPTION

Some staffs are considered morally corrupt because of their actions; participants to in-depth

interview argued that some female workers visibly entice their male superiors sexually in search

of favours which compromise personal integrity, supervisor’s dignity and institutional image.

Such conduct affects employment professionalism where public service delivery declines on the

whims of immoral actions of some staff in public institutions. This is confirmed by 72.2% (420

employees) of respondents [42.4% in LG, 9.8% in CG and 47.9% in HC] who agree that moral

corruption cause conflict at workplace. This conflict emerges from employee that perceives such

misconduct as not befitting a professional staff at the public workplace.

4.3.1.7. WRONGFUL ACCUSATIONS

Often leaders and managers misdirect blame and accusations to wrong staff causing

disgruntlements and conflict at workplace. 68.9% (401 employees) of respondents [42.9% in LG,

9.7% in CG and 47.4% in HC] indicated that wrongful accusations constitute sources of conflict

at workplace. This kind of misdirecting blame was reflected by one of the participants during

the in-depth interview who said “nkanjye, umuyobozi wanjye yaje mu biro ansanga mu kazi

ambaza impamvu abonye intebe ziri hanze mu bwira ko ntazi abazihashyize n’impamvu

bazihashyize; antegeka kuzikuraho mubaza aho ndi buzishyire arambwira ati hashake. Mbona

bimbangamiye kuko bitari mu nshingano zanjye, kandi ntazi uwazihashyize icyo agambiriye.

Aragenda agarutse asanga nazishyize mu nzu antegeka gushaka bene zo, mbona ko ari

ukunyiyenzaho, ndamwihorera ndataha kuko amasaha yo gutaha yari ageze; ngeze mu rugo

44

arampamagara antegeka kugaruka ku kazi kwimura izo ntebe kandi ari nyuma y’akazi.

Ndamwihorera mfunga telephone yanjye; bukeye mu gitondo nsubiye mu kazi ahita ampindurira

akazi anjyana mu bindi bintu binyuranye n’ibyo nakoraga” ( In my case, my superior came to

my office and asked me why he saw the chairs spread outside; I replied that I did not know who

put them there and why; He told me to remove them and I asked him where to put those chairs.

He replied that it is my duty to find where those chairs should go. Because it was not in my

scope of work, I felt offended because I did not know where to put the chairs; in effect, I closed

my office and went home because it was after work hours. Few hours later, the supervisor called

me again to return and remove the chairs. I got angry and closed my phone. The following

morning, when I returned at work, my supervisor called me in his office and told me that I have

been transferred to work from area whose scope was different from my previous tasks).

This implies that often leaders and managers run public institutions, human resources and

logistics according to personal discernment and judgments rather than on provisions of the law,

leading to conflict at workplace.

4.3.1.8. ABUSIVE LANGUAGE

Some employees use abusive language that harms colleagues and cause conflict at workplace.

65.3% (380 employees) of Respondents [43.4% in LG, 9.2% in CG and 47.4% in HC] affirmed

that some employees at workplace use provocative, stinging and degrading words inciting fellow

employees to react angrily and cause conflict at workplace. In one Hospital, one of the

participants to in-depth interview cited a case where the survivors working in one Health Centre

accuse their colleagues of withholding information related to the death of their loved ones during

the 1994 genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi. Even though there are no signs of visible

conflict it is noticed from such allegations that their work relationship is not conducive, thereby

affirming the interpretation that such relationship is conflict-ridden.

4.3.1.9. DESERTION FROM WORK

Some irresponsible employees exploit the weak procedures at the institution to desert work and

attend to personal issues. This is true of the 64.4% (375 Employees) of respondents [41.1% in

LG, 10.4% in CG and 48.5% in HC] who agreed that some staff take advantage of weak system,

hence creating grievances, envy and jealous from fellow employees at workplace.

45

4.3.1.10. PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICES

Weak systems painfully permit elusive staff to engage in unprofessional malpractices like self-

absenteeism from work, faking sickness to engage in personal businesses and creating endless

excuses to tend to family matters to name a few. Data available from research points to 44.5%

(259 employees) of respondents [39.8% in LG, 13.5% in CG and 46.7% in HC] reporting that

people working outside the city of Kigali (other provinces) create unjustified travel missions,

forge sick leave documents in order to engage in personal business lime family matters and

more. This creates conflict between the misbehaving and non-misbehaving staff where the latter

stay to substitute those unavailable for personal reasons, yet the administration is not aware of

such malpractices or even when it suspects of them, it can prove it because of gaps in the staff

monitoring tools.

4.3.2. INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES

Institutional structure and procedures contribute to conflicts at workplace. This is confirmed by

Pondy (1967) who argues that ―Organizational Conflict is a dynamic process underlying

organizational behaviour‖. The foregoing framework points to various institutional linked

structures and procedures that contribute to conflicts at workplace.

As indicated in the table no 8, among the causes related to institutional structure as identified by

the employees include but not limited to the following: lack of team work, interference of other

people into jobs, work overload, unfair transfer of employees, expectations from work are too

high to available skills, scarcity of resources, unfair provision of different kinds of benefits

among employees, rigid procedures, disagreements on goals, rewarding systems, unfair demotion

or sanctions, unfair discrepancies in salaries, no clear objectives, no clear policies and

procedures, ambiguity of roles, unlawful salary retention and interdependence of tasks.

46

Table no 8: Perception of employees on causes of conflicts that are related to institutional structure and procedures

Behaviour %Strongly

agree (1)

%Agree

2

Total

%

( &2)


LG

LG Percentage

CG

CG Percentage

HC

HC %

Disagree

Frequency

Lack of teamwork 62.4 25.3 87.7 510 44.0 222 6.0 33 50.0 255 12.3 72

External

interference to the

jobs

45 38.7 83.7 487 45.4 221 7.2 35 47.4 231 16.3 95

Work overload 47.1 34.5 81.6 475 45.7 217 8.0 38 46.3 220 18.4 107

Unfair Transfer 38 38.3 76.3 444 41.6 185 7.7 34 50.7 225 23.7 138

Expectations from

work are too high

to available skills

38 36.4 74.4 433 40.2 174 9.2 40 50.6 219 25.6 149

Scarcity of

resources

38.5 34.2 72.7 423 43.5 184 9.2 39 47.3 200 27.3 159

Unfair provision

of different kinds

of benefits

45 27.5 72.5 422 45.0 190 9.2 39 45.7 193 27.5 160

Rigid procedures 38.3 33 71.3 415 42.7 177 8.2 34 49.2 204 28.7 167

Disagreements on

goals

36.4 34.2 70.6 411 41.6 171 9.7 40 48.7 200 29.4 171

Rewarding

systems

33.3 37.1 70.4 410 42.0 172 9.5 39 48.5 199 29.6 172

47

Behaviour %Strongly

agree (1)

%Agree

2

Total

%

(

1&2)


LG

LG Percentage

CG

CG Percentage

HC

HC %

Disagree

Freque

ncy

Unfair demotion

or sanctions

38.7 27.8 66.5 387 43.9 170 10.1 39 46.0 178 33.5 195

Unfair

discrepancies in

salaries

36 30 66 384 43.0 165 10.4 40 46.6 179 34 198

Unclear objectives 34 31.8 65.8 383 46.7 179 10.2 39 43.1 165 34.2 199

Unclear policies

and procedures

35.1 29.7 64.8 377 43.3 163 10.3 39 46.4 175 35.2 205

Ambiguity of

roles

31.4 29.4 60.8 354 45.2 160 10.5 37 44.3 157 39.2 228

Unlawful salary

retention

44 16.5 60.5 352 43.5 153 11.0 39 45.5 160 39.5 230

Interdependence

of tasks

23.9 35.1 59 343 45.2 155 11.7 40 43.1 148 41 239


48

4.3.2.1. LACK OF TEAMWORK

Lack of teamwork among institutional staff contributes to organisational underperformance,

backsliding and blame attribution among staff and management. Research indicates 87.8% (510

employees) of respondents [44% in LG, 6% in CG and 50% in HC] confirmed that lack of

teamwork affects employees’ performance and cause conflict at work place. A case in point, in

the mental health department a supervisor conflicted with junior staff; the latter refused to

compile their report on mental health; the supervisor could not provide some report due to the

latter’s lack of specialty in clinical psychology. This caused conflict and affected their work

relationships and the general performance.

4.3.2.2.EXTERNAL INTERFERENCE TO THE JOB

External interference influences institutional management and affects staff performance, causing

conflict at workplace. Available data shows 83.8% (487 employees) of respondents [45.4% in

LG, 7.2% in CG and 47.4% in HC] who agree that external influence causes conflict at

workplace. This is particularly reported in local government structures where institutional

collaboration requires involvement of external elements to ensure effective performance and

efficiency in service delivery.

4.3.2.3.WORK OVERLOAD

Work overload causes conflict at workplace. Available data indicates that 81.6% (475

employees) of respondents [45.7% in LG, 8% in CG and 46.3% in HC] agreed that excessive

work fail the employees to reach targets and cause conflict between them and management.

Some of them complain of performing unplanned tasks, failure to take leave due to a lot of work,

failure to get compensation for overtime work and even those who take leave are recalled prior to

completing the leave due to work pressures. This causes conflict between employees and

institutional management which wants work done rather than complaints on heavy workload.

4.3.2.4. UNFAIR TRANSFER

Illegal and unjustified transfers cause conflicts at workplace. This is true of 76.3% (444

employees) of respondents [41.6 in LG, 7.7% in CG and 50.7% in HC] who asserted that unfair/

unjustified transfers cause conflicts at workplace.

49

This implies that employees affected by such transfers do not necessarily deliver services to the

customer satisfaction since they inhibit grievances that affect their performance. Specifically,

employees stationed in City of Kigali refuse regional transfers citing high cost of living

associated with such transfers as stated here below:

Literary, respondent says ―the staff of institution X refused to be transferred to the regional

offices claiming to maintain two families; one in Kigali and the other one where they are

stationed‖. This implies that where such transfers are affected without due consideration of the

action impact to staff life, it affects employee’s performance and cause conflict between

employees and their supervisors at workplace.

4.3.2.5. EMPLOYEES’ INCOMPETENCE

Employees’ incompetence results from staff with limited skills in comparison to work demands,

laziness and underperformance. Such staff depend on rumour mongering (colleague sell-out) to

cover their weaknesses. 74.4% (433 employees) of respondents [40.3% in LG, 9.2 in CG and

50.6 in HC] affirmed that this is a serious source of conflict at workplace.

4.3.2.6. SCARCE RESOURCES

Research indicates that 72.7% (423 employees) of respondents [43.5% in LG, 9.2% in CG and

47.3% in HC] agreed that limited resources cause conflict at workplace. This is reflected by the

unfulfilled staff field plans yet at the end of the year they are evaluated on the same activities

hence, causing conflict with the management.

4.3.2.7. UNFAIR DISTRIBUTION OF OPPORTUNITIES

Unfair distribution of opportunities like trainings, field missions, seminars and conferences cause

disgruntlements among the organisational staff.Available data indicates 72.5% (422 employees)

of respondents [45% in LG, 9.2% in CG and 45.7% in HC] who agree that this aspect is a source

― abakozi b’ikigo X banze kujya gukorera mu Ntara bitwaje ko bibasaba gutunga ingo

2, urw’i Kigali n’urwaho akorera; bamwe bagiyeyo, abandi banga kujyayo. Ariko

nabagiyeyo, bahora i Kigali cyangwa bagahimba impamvu zituma bahora i Kigali‖.

50

of conflict at workplace. Where some staffs are deprived of such opportunities they consider the

management as biased and conflict fuelling among staff. Because everyone targets such a chance

as an opportunity for self-improvement and exposure, it causes conflict at work whenever the

policy is not clear as to how staff rotate in attaining such opportunities.

4.3.2.8. RIGID PROCEDURES

Inflexible procedures suffocate along the evolving situations and make staff rebellious. During

research, 71.3% (415 Employees) of respondents [42.7% in LG, 8.2% in CG and 49.2% in HC]

agreed that rigid procedures cause conflict between junior staff and supervisors as well as

between employees and the institutions. When the Office of Auditor General report is released,

some institutions complain of staff under performance while employees equally cite the

interference from their seniors in messing up the work. When the report is released no one wants

to own the mistakes due to the fear of the repercussions. This case was reported on the tender

procedures which were disrespected and both junior and senior staff got stuck in trading

accusations without citing who bears responsibility and blame.

4.3.2.9. DISAGREEMENTS ON GOALS

Juniors and supervisors often disagree on goals and objectives during the setting of performance

evaluation criteria. 70.6% (411 employees) of respondents [41.6% in LG, 9.7% in CG and 48.7%

in HC] agreed that unclear goals cause conflict between junior and senior staff or employees and

management on how and when to perform assigned tasks (means and ways to perform the

assignments).

4.3.2.10. REWARDING SYSTEMS

During research, 70.4% (410 employees) of respondents [42% in LG, 9.5% in CG and 48.5% in

HC] said that the rewarding system is misused by some of the institutional management and

cause conflict at workplace. Respondents cited a case of the employee of the year who is selected

by management without staff participation in selection and without clear set criteria for selection

of such an employee. This leads to rewarding nonperformers and depriving the performers of the

opportunity to be rewarded for their efforts. The teachers’ flat rate increment to all staff

discourages employee’ competition and innovation in performance; this system rewards both

51

performers and non-performers thereby denying the opportunity for promotion to the best

performers.

Institutional appraisal that affects individual performance through rationing of the marks to all

institutional staff and affect the individual salary increments like the health staff who depend on

performance based financing discourages motivation and staff retention.

Performance appraisal system is case sensitive to employees because it is a determining factor in

their promotion and demotion status.

4.3.2.11. UNFAIR DEMOTION OR SANCTIONS

Unfair demotions and sanctions reflect deficiencies in institutional management; this situation

directly causes conflict at workplace because employees and management clash over several

factors related to work and performance. 66.5% (387 employees) of respondents [43.9% in LG,

10.1% in CG and 46% in HC] agreed that conflict is directly linked to institutional management

whose deficiencies promote conflict instead of managing it. In the Western province a District

employee appealed against the decision to transfer the staff from the post of procurement officer

to planning officer, the latter which is not set on the district staff structure. In some other cases,

institutional managers dismiss staff without respect to legal procedures which causes government

to lose a lot of money in pursuing such cases before courts of law.

In a given District, an evaluation of employees was done subjectively in order to

terminate their career in public servant. The case was reported to MIFOTRA and

PSC, the decision was that 12 must be rehabilitate in their service. Until now,

among 12 employees, 9 still perform their job correctly, 2 have obtained other

position in other institutions and 1 has moved the District voluntary. This

evaluation done by the District authority was subjective because it is not done

progressively. The leaders wait the end of the year for evaluation and influenced by

some factors such as halo effect, recency effect, …

52

4.3.2.12. UNFAIR DISCREPANCIES IN SALARIES

Unfair discrepancies in salaries results from staff transfer or institutional reforms. 66% (384

employees) of respondents [43% in LG, 10.4% in CG and 46.6% in HC] reported case of salary

reduction s in unclear circumstances. The case of employees whose salaries were reduced as a

result of institutional reform and lodged their complaint with the Ministry of Public Service and

Labour which never replied to this day. This causes employees disgruntlement and leads to

ineffective and inefficient performance hence poor results.

4.3.2.13. UNCLEAR OBJECTIVES

During the research, 65.8% (383 employees) of the respondents [46.7% in LG, 10.2 in CG and

43.1% in HC] agreed that non clear objectives set by the institutional management cause conflict

between juniors and supervisor staff. It was noted that some institutions do not have expertise in

planning and setting measureable indicators for achieving results. This situation causes conflict

between implementing and supervising staff during performance appraisal. A case in point the

performance appraisal format provided by the Ministry of Public Service and Labour cannot be

used by doctors since they cannot set their targets on the number of patients to be received and

treated. This is because patient treatment is dependent on complications resulting from the

patient sickness, and therefore treatment is much more qualitative than quantitative, hence the

use of PBF. This PBF also carries its weaknesses imbedded in institutional appraisal rationed on

individual performance rather than basing it on individual performance, hence reducing

employee motivation and affecting work results quantitatively.

4.3.2.14. UNCLEAR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

During the research, 64.8% (377 employees) of respondents [43.3% in LG, 10.3% in CG and

46.4% in HC] highlighted non clear policies and procedures as a source of conflict at workplace.

This implies that such unclear policies cause confusion and ambiguity in setting clearly defined

targets and expected results to guide staff performance. Consequently, the employees and

supervisors lock themselves in disagreements during performance appraisal because of unclear

policy and procedures. A case in point articles in law (art 14 of PM order no 121/03 of

08/09/2010) which do not set measurable indicators provide gaps through which biased

supervisors use to penalize employees who do not respond to their will.

53

4.3.2.15. AMBIGUITY OF ROLES

Research data available indicates that 60.8% (354 employees) of respondents [45.2% in LG,

10.5% in CG and 44.3% in HC] agreed on ambiguity of roles among the employees. This results

from unclearly separated tasks, particularly in local administration where tasks at the lower

levels are combined to ease work but reporting becomes ambiguous since no exact office

responsible for receiving and executing recommendations of such report.

4.3.2.16. UNLAWFUL SALARY RETENTION

Unlawful salary retention results from institutional management which deducts staff salaries on

unlawful grounds claiming disciplinary sanctions against the employees. 60.5 % (352

employees) of respondents [43.5% in LG, 11% in CG and 45.5% in HC] agreed that this action

has a high degree of causing conflict at workplace..

4.3.2.17. INTERDEPENDENCE OF TASKS

Some tasks depend on performance of other departments to fulfil their tasks. 59% (343

employees) of respondents [45.2% in LG, 11.7% in CG and 43.1 in HC] agreed that when such

support departments delay in their performance; it affects the performance of the departments. A

case in point, when procurement department lags behind in procuring required materials,

implementing departments also lag behind the implementation timelines which they are

evaluated against. This causes conflict between procurement staff and other departments whose

activities depend on procurement performance.

4.3.3. LEADERSHIP RELATED CAUSES

Leadership style used by leaders is a source of conflict at workplace. The style used includes

lack of communication, weak leadership, inconsistence in decision making, nepotism and

favouritism, leadership disregarding advice, indecision as indicated in the table no 9.

54

Table no 9: Employees’ Perception on causes of conflicts related to leadership

Behaviour %Strongly

agree (1)

%Agree

2

Total

%

(1&2)


LG

LG Percentage

CG

CG Percentage

HC

HC %

Disagree

Frequency

Lack of

Communication

47 36,3 83.3 485 43.3 210 7.2 35 49.5 240 16,7 97

Nepotism &

favouritism

47,3 33,5 80.8 470 44.0 207 8.1 38 47.9 225 19,2 112

Leadership

disregarding

advise

50 26,8 76.8 447 45.4 203 8.9 40 45.7 204 23,2 135

Inconsistent in

decision making

39,2 34,9 74.1 431 45.0 194 8.8 38 46.2 199 25,9 151

Indecision 33,3 34,5 67.8 395 45.1 178 9.9 39 45 178 32,2 187

Weak leadership 36,1 28,4 64.5 375 39.5 148 10.4 39 50.1 188 35,5 207


55

4.3.3.1. LACK OF COMMUNICATIONS

Leadership has an impact on conflicts that occur at workplace in public institutions. As it is

indicated on the table 9, a proportion of 83.3% (485 employees) of respondents [43.3% in LG,

7.2% in CG and 49.5% in HC] said that communication problems from leaders cause conflicts. It

involves unclear messages, ambiguities in communication and uncommunicative tendencies

reflected by fear to convene department meetings by superiors.

4.3.3.2. NEPOTISM AND FAVOURITISM

The overwhelming 80.8% (470 employees) of respondents [44% in LG, 8.1% in CG and 47.9%

in HC] believe that leaders or authorities’ favouritism and nepotism towards some employees in

the organization cause conflicts. This points to the findings from interviews where one of the

participants revealed that some employees are given more privileges than others. For example in

schools it was found that when there are trainings, the same teachers are given the privileges to

attend trainings. In one of the secondary schools, teachers said that there is a science teacher who

was sent to attend training which were reserved for the English teachers and this caused conflicts

between the science teacher and the English teacher and between the English teacher and the

head teacher. The same case was found whereby a Biology Teacher was sent to do the scheme of

work of English whereas this was supposed to be done by the English teacher. It was also

reported that at workplace some employees work hard but they are not rewarded whereas the

rewards are given to their counterparts who are lazy. This practice is coupled with unfair

evaluation of employees. All those practices lead to conflicts.

4.3.3.3. LEADERSHIP DISREGARDING ADVISE

Leadership disregarding advise are reflected by leaders that take public institutions like private

property. This is reflected in unfair and unlawful departmental transfers, refusal of advice from

senior management team, belief in personal infallibility. 76.8% (447 employees) of respondents

[45.4% in LG, 8.9% in CG and 45.7% in HC] said that rigid leadership causes conflict at

workplace because the leadership imprudently takes decisions without seeking advice from

others.

56

4.3.3.4. INCONSISTENCE IN DECISION MAKING

Inconsistencies in decision making, leaves staff in doubt and confusion. This is reflected by

64.1% (373 employees) of respondents [45% in LG, 8.8% in CG and 46.2% in HC] who believe

that such inconsistencies result in taking arbitrary decisions like staff suspension, unlawful salary

retention and many more. It affects institutional performance and causes conflict between

management and staff.

4.3.3.5. INDECISION

Indecision negatively affects the institutional image. 67.8% (395 employees) of respondents

[45.1% in LG, 9.9% in CG and 45% in HC] asserted that leaders’ fear to take decisions leads to

conflict at workplace. Some participants to in-depth interview reported that some leaders at

workplace do not make fair decisions which staff work relationships. Thus, friendship, nepotism

and favouritism towards some employees cause conflicts at workplace.

4.3.3.6. WEAK LEADERSHIP

Weak leaders make their institutions vulnerable to weak performance and yield minimal results.

64.5% (375 employees) of respondents [39.5% in LG, 10.4% in CG and 50.1% in HC] reported

that such weak leadership is a source of conflict when it fails to take firm decisions on

institutional matters, performance and focus. Even performance evaluation is susceptible to

arbitrary judgements due to such leadership weaknesses, leading to several appeals and claims

reaching the PSC.

4.3.4. RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT OF EMPLOYEES

Recruitment and placement is a sensitive subject requiring fairness and transparency in its

implementation. Lack of fairness and transparency in recruitment and placement leads to

grievances and cause conflict at workplace; the unfair recruitment and placement system

includes but is not limited to misplacement of skills and resources in the recruitment process and

recruitment malpractices as indicated in the table no 10.

57

Table no 10: Employees’ perception on recruitment and placement procedures as sources of conflicts

Behaviour %Strongly

agree (1)

%Agree

(2)

Total

%

(1&2)


LG

LG Percentage

CG

CG Percentage

HC

HC %

Disagree

Frequency

Misplacement of

skills and

resources in the

recruitment

process

47 36,3 83.3 485 38.6 187 8.2 40 53.2 258 16,7 97

Recruitment

malpractices

53,1 18,4 71.5 416 45.2 188 9.4 39 45.4 189 28,5 166


58

4.3.4.1. MISPLACEMENT OF SKILLS AND RESOURCES IN THE RECRUITMENT

PROCESS

Misplacement of employees leads to conflict among employees and leaders. In this context,

83.3% (485 employees) of respondents [ 38.6% in LG, 8.2% in CG and 53.2% in HC] reported

that due to corrupt officials that manipulate the recruitment systems in public service cause

institutions to misplace skills and resources, leading to underperformance and conflict escalation

between misplaced staff and supervisors, management and staff.

4.3.4.2. NON TRANSPARENT RECRUITMENT PROCESSES (Recruitment

malpractices)

Unfair recruitment and placement process of employees causes conflicts. 69.8% (406 employees)

of respondents [45.2% in LG, 9.4% in CG and 45.4% in HC] said that some leaders do not

respect the recruitment process and recruit or appoint employees without recruitment tests.

According to respondents’ perception, recruitment malpractices like nepotism, favouritism and

partiality characterise most of the public service recruitments. 71.5% of respondents (416

employees) reported that there are recruitment malpractices namely, bribes, sexual advances and

nepotism distorted at the detriment of the institutional image. Such conduct not only reflects the

deteriorating nature of the institutions’ leadership but also moral decadency which fuels conflict

among the institutional staff and its management. This is because the result of such actions leads

into recruiting non performing staff, thereby causing conflict at workplace.

4.3.5. HARASSMENT

Harassment can cause conflict at workplace as indicated in the table no 11. The following aspects

are source of conflict: harassment to junior staff by supervisor and leaders, refusal to grant seek

and annual leave, sexual harassment and constant focus particular person without any reason.

59

Table no 11: Perception of employees on harassment as a cause of conflicts in public institutions

Behaviour %Strongly

agree (1)

%Agree

(2)

Total

%

(1&2)


LG

LG Percentage

CG

CG Percentage

HC

HC %

Disagree

Frequency

Harassment to

junior staff by

supervisors and

leaders

36.3 32 68.3 398 45.7 182 10.1 40 44.2 176 31.7 184

Refusal to grant

sick/annual leave

37.6 30.1 66.7 388 46.1 179 10.3 40 43.6 169 33.3 194

Sexual harassment 34.7 21.6 56.3 328 42.1 138 11.6 38 46.3 152 43.7 254

Mistreatment of

pregnant women

24.6 31.1 55.7 324 42.6 138 12.3 40 45.1 146 44.3 258

Constant focus on

particular person

without any

reason

32.3 22 54.3 316 41.1 130 10.8 34 48.1 152 45.7 266


60

4.3.5.1. HARASSMENT TO JUNIOR STAFF BY SUPERVISORS AND LEADERS

The harassment to junior staff by supervisors was reported by 68.3% (398 employees) of

respondents [45.7% in LG, 10.1% in CG and 44.2% in HC]. During the in-depth interviews,

participants reported that some leaders harass employees threatening them to be chased from the

institution or by accusing them of being incompetent. One of the participants to in-depth

interview said ―wowe ntacyo umaze, kandi nzakwirukana‖ literally saying, you are worth

nothing! I will suck you.

4.3.5.2. REFUSAL TO GRANT SICK AND ANNUAL LEAVE

Refusal to grant sick leave is associated with 57.7% (388 employees) of respondents [46.1% in

LG, 10.3% in CG and 43.6% in HC] who affirm its link to the causes of conflict at workplace.

Some managers refuse to grant leave to claiming staff citing existence of heavy workload or

forcefully recall staff on leave to return to work prior to the end of leave because of heavy

workload. Such right denials cause conflict at workplace.

4.3.5.3. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Sexual harassment is reflected in oppressive actions aimed at soliciting sexual favours from the

victim. 56.5% (328 employees) of respondents [42.1 in LG, 11.6% in CG and 46.3% in HC]

reported the existence of such cases in their institutions. This harassment causes conflict between

the oppressed and oppressor resulting into conflict at the workplace.

4.3.5.4. MISTREATMENT OF PREGNANT WOMEN

During research, 55.7% (324 employees) of respondents [42.6% in LG, 12.3% in CG and 45.1%

in HC] reported that harassment of pregnant women at workplace in public institutions causes

conflicts. Pregnant women and lactating mothers are perceived to be weak, delaying work and

causing the institution t underperformance. Personal harassment from their supervisors leads to

conflict at workplace.

61

4.3.5.5. CONSTANT FOCUS ON PARTICULAR PERSON WITHOUT ANY

REASON

Other cases of harassment raised during the interviews indicated leaders or supervisors at

workplace who constantly focus their accusations and blame on a particular person without any

reason. 54.3% (316 employees) of respondents [41.1% in LG, 10.8% in CG and 48.1 in HC]

agreed that such harassment manifests itself regularly.

4.3.6. EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON CONFLICTS AT WORK PLACE

The figure no 12 indicates that external influences have impacts on conflicts among employees at

work place.

Figure no 12: Perception of employees on external influences as cause of conflict

Source: field data, 2014

As it is indicated in the figure no 12, a proportion of 27.8 % of respondents (162 employees)

asserted that in their organizations external influences cause conflicts among employees. From

personal interviews, the participants reported that people outside the organization use unknown

telephone numbers to frighten employees inside the organization.

62

However, 71% of respondents (413 employees) revealed that in their organizations, conflicts are

not caused by external influences whereas 1.2% (7 employees) of respondents asserted that they

do not know anything about the influence of external factors on conflicts in their organizations.

Another factor that can lead to conflicts among the employees is the lack of knowledge about

their rights.

A case of employees in X District were accused not well performing their

assignment related to the tender process. The employees were put in jail for 6

days and released after. The employees have been reintegrated in their service by

District council. When the decisions reach the Governor office, he did not accept

the resolution of reintegration and order to dismiss the employees. Employees

were dismissed and one of them filing a plaint towards PSC. After investigation,

the PSC asserted that the District should reintegrate the employee into his

position or dismiss him and respect the provision of public servant law. The

District gave the termination benefits and the employee is dismissed.

63

4.3.7. RANKING OF EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTION ON CAUSES OF CONFLICT AT WORKPLACE

Behaviour %Strongly

agree (1)

%Agree

2

Total

%

(1&2)


LG

LG Percentage

CG

CG Percentage

HC

HC %

Disagree

Frequency

Lack of teamwork 62.4 25.3 87.7 510 44.0 222 6.0 33 50.0 255 12.3 72

Interference of

other people into

jobs

45 38.7 83.7 487 45.4 221 7.2 35 47.4 231 16.3 95

Lack of

Communication

47 36,3 83.3 485 43.3 210 7.2 35 49.5 240 16,7 97

Misplacement of

skills and

resources in the

recruitment

process

47 36,3 83.3 485 38.6 187 8.2 40 53.2 258 16,7 97

Negative

Criticisms and

Gossip

46.6 35.4 82 477 42.6 203 7.8 37 49.6 237 18 105

Work overload 47.1 34.5 81.6 475 45.7 217 8.0 38 46.3 220 18.4 107

Denying personal

mistakes

45.5 35.4 80.9 471 43.5 205 8.5 40 48.0 226 19.1 111

Nepotism &

favouritism

47,3 33,5 80.8 470 44.0 207 8.1 38 47.9 225 19,2 112

Employee’s

Conduct/

Misconduct

37.9 42.5 80.4 468 44.7 209 7.1 33 48.2 226 19.6 114

64

Behaviour %Strongly

agree (1)

%Agree

2

Total

%

(1&2)


LG

LG Percentage

CG

CG Percentage

HC

HC %

Disagree

Frequency

Leadership

disregarding

advise

50 26,8 76.8 447 45.4 203 8.9 40 45.7 204 23,2 135

Unfair Transfer 38 38.3 76.3 444 41.6 185 7.7 34 50.7 225 23.7 138

Stressful

Environment

31.3 44.5 75.8 441 42.4 187 9.1 40 48.5 214 24.2 141

Expectations from

work are too high

to available skills

38 36.4 74.4 433 40.2 174 9.2 40 50.6 219 25.6 149

Inconsistent in

decision making

39,2 34,9 74.1 431 45.0 194 8.8 38 46.2 199 25,9 151

Envy/Jealous 40.5 32.6 73.1 425 40.7 173 9.4 40 49.9 212 26.8 157

Scarcity of

resources

38.5 34.2 72.7 423 43.5 184 9.2 39 47.3 200 27.3 159

Unfair provision

of different kinds

of benefits

45 27.5 72.5 422 45.0 190 9.2 39 45.7 193 27.5 160

Moral Corruption 43.2 29 72.2 420 42.4 178 9.8 41 47.9 201 36.8 162

Recruitment

malpractices

53,1 18,4 71.5 416 45.2 188 9.4 39 45.4 189 28,5 166

Rigid procedures 38.3 33 71.3 415 42.7 177 8.2 34 49.2 204 28.7 167

Disagreements on

goals

36.4 34.2 70.6 411 41.6 171 9.7 40 48.7 200 29.4 171

65

Behaviour %Strongly

agree (1)

%Agree

2

Total

%

(1&2)


LG

LG Percentage

CG

CG Percentage

HC

HC %

Disagree

Freque

ncy

Rewarding

systems

33.3 37.1 70.4 410 42.0 172 9.5 39 48.5 199 29.6 172

Non transparent

recruitment

process

43,1 26,7 69.8 406 44.1 179 9.6 39 46.3 188 30,2 176

Wrongful

Accusations

39 29.9 68.9 401 42.9 172 9.7 39 47.4 190 31.1 181

Harassment to

junior staff by

supervisors and

leaders

36.3 32 68.3 398 45.7 182 10.1 40 44.2 176 31.7 184

Indecision 33,3 34,5 67.8 395 45.1 178 9.9 39 45.1 178 32,2 187

Refusal to grant

sick/annual leave

37.6 30.1 66.7 388 46.1 179 10.3 40 43.6 169 33.3 194

Unfair demotion

or sanctions

38.7 27.8 66.5 387 43.9 170 10.1 39 46.0 178 33.5 195

Unfair

discrepancies in

salaries

36 30 66 384 43.0 165 43.0 40 46.6 179 34 198

No clear

objectives

34 31.8 65.8 383 46.7 179 10.2 39 43.1 165 34.2 199

Abusive

Language

31.8 33.5 65.3 380 43.4 165 9.2 35 47.4 180 34.7 202

No clear policies

and procedures

35.1 29.7 64.8 377 43.3 163 10.3 39 46.4 175 35.2 205

66

Behaviour %Strongly

agree (1)

%Agree

2

Total

%

(1&2)


LG

LG Percentage

CG

CG Percentage

HC

HC %

Disagree

Freque

ncy

Weak leadership 36,1 28,4 64.5 375 39.5 148 10.4 39 50.1 188 35,5 207

Work Desertion 27.3 37.1 64.4 375 41.1 154 10.4 39 48.5 182 35.6 207

Ambiguity of

roles

31.4 29.4 60.8 354 45.2 160 10.5 37 44.3 157 39.2 228

Unlawful salary

retention

44 16.5 60.5 352 43.5 153 11.0 39 45.5 160 39.5 230

Interdependence

of tasks

23.9 35.1 59 343 45.2 155 11.7 40 43.1 148 41 239

Sexual harassment 34.7 21.6 56.3 328 42.1 138 11.6 38 46.3 152 43.7 254

Mistreatment of

pregnant women

24.6 31.1 55.7 324 42.6 138 12.3 40 45.1 146 44.3 258

Constant focus on

particular person

without any

reason

32.3 22 54.3 316 41.1 130 10.8 34 48.1 152 45.7 266

Professional

Malpractices

22.9 21.6 44.5 259 39.8 103 13.5 35 46.7 121 55.5 323

67

4.4. IMPACT OF CONFLICT AT WORKPLACE

The impact of conflict at workplace is a crucial factor which affects not only individuals but

also institutional performance, organizational culture and capacity to respond effectively to

work related challenges. In this session, the emphasis will be put on the impact of conflict at

individual and institutional level.

4.4.1. INDIVIDUAL IMPACT

Conflict at workplace has an impact at individual level. Among the consequences include

broken relations, employees’ instability and insecurity, loss of commitment to work,

voluntary and forceful resignation as well as moral and physical injuries as indicate in the

table no 12

Table no 12: Employees’ perception on the impact of conflict to an employee at

workplace

Strongly

agree(1)

Agree

(2)

Total

(1+2)

Frequency Disagree Frequency

Broken relationships 66.2 27.3 93.5 544 6.5 38

Employee instability& Insecurity 58.4 33.5 91.9 535 8.1 47

Loss of commitment to work 46.2 44.2 90.4 526 9.6 56

Voluntary resignation 36.3 31.4 67.7 394 32.3 188

Forceful resignation 42.4 26.3 68.7 400 31.3 182

Moral and physical injuries 37.5 36.1 73.6 428 26.4 154

Source: Field data, 2014 Total

4.4.1.1. BROKEN RELATIONSHIP

As indicated in the table no 12, the proportion of 93.3% (543 employees) asserted that

conflict at workplace ignites broken relationships among employees.

4.4.1.2. EMPLOYEE INSTABILITY AND INSECURITY

Available data indicates that 91.9% of respondents (535 employees) agree that conflict at

work place causes insecurity where employees develop mistrust, suspicions and fear of each

68

other resulting into treachery and conspiracy. At the individual level, respondents said that

many times staff engaged in conflict takes time thinking on how to leave the institution to

look for elsewhere to be secure.

Literally saying, my manager sought my advice on 5 employees he wanted o fire; as a legal

officer I told him it was impossible since those staff did not have any reprimand letter in their

files. He rebuked me that I’m incompetent and went ahead to suck them. The same staff filed

a law suit against the institution and won the case. The institution was ordered to compensate

them; now my manager is against me. I would have left this place but because the new law

requires me to stay for three years, I am stuck without what to do.

4.4.1.3. LOSS OF MORAL AND COMMITMENT TO WORK

Research indicates that 90.4% of respondents (526 employees) agree that when conflict

occurs at workplace, employees loose moral and commitment to work.

4.4.1.4. VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION

Conflict at workplace is a catalyst for voluntary resignation to many employees who do not

have guts to fight on yet continue to feel insure. As it is indicated in the figure no 13, a

proportion of 24.9% of respondents (145 employees) said that they know the cases of

employees who left their institutions because of conflicts at work place.

One participant said during the interview ―umuyobozi wanjye yangishije inama ku

myitwarire yabakozi 5 yashakaga kwirukana. Nk’ umunyamategeko mubwirako bidashoboka

kubera ko abo bakozi nta dosiye mbi bafite. Bitewe nuko byari binyuranije n’ibyifuzo

byumuyobozi wange yavuze ko nta kazi nshoboye afata icyemezio cyo kubirukana. Ubu abo

bakozi 5 batanze ikirego mu rukiko. None nange umuyobozi yanyishyizemo; aha nkora

nabuze uko nahava kuko itegeko rishya rigenga abakozi ba Leta mu ngingo yaryo ya 34

riteganya ko umukozi amara mu kigo byibuze imyaka 3 mbere yo kuhava kandi nkaba

ntarayimara”

69

Figure no 13: Employees who left their institution because of workplace conflicts


4.4.1.5. FORCEFUL RESIGNATION

Organizational culture reflects the employees’ behaviour at work and commitment to achieve

results. Where the organizational culture is imbued in fear, threats and harassment,

performance declines and results shrink. In this case, 68.7% of respondents (400 employees)

agreed that forceful resignation is a common practice in institutions whose management style

is composed of the above factors.

4.4.1.6. MORAL AND PHYSICAL INJURY

Available data indicates that 73.6% of respondents agree that conflict harms psychologically,

spiritually and physically. It affects employees’ performance at work and at home because of

the emotional injuries they carry along.

4.4.2. INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT

The conflict at work place has a negative impact on the institutional performance where the

employee results decline due to lack of commitment, lost motivation, teamwork spirit and

personal underperformance as indicate in the table no 13.

70

Table no 13: Employees’ perception on the impact of conflict to the institution

Strongly

agree

Agree Total Frequency Disagree

Reduced Productivity 50 37.5 87.5 509 12.5

Work Insecurity 46.9 39.9 86.8 505 13.2

Waste of time and resources 40.9 39.2 80.1 466 19.9

Absenteeism 36.1 41.6 77.7 452 22.3

High employee turnover 30.4 39.5 69.9 407 30.1

Judicial and penal effects 30.1 30.1 60.2 350 39.8


4.4.2.1. REDUCED PRODUCTIVITY

Conflicts at work place affect productivity at high rate as indicated by 87.5% of respondents

(509 employees), this implies that the parties engaged in conflict most of the time focus on

personal issues rather than work itself. Fear, resistance, suspicion and conspiracy characterize

those that are engaged in conflict, thereby affecting not only service delivery but also the

quality of service delivered. This is reflected by 69.9% of respondents (407 employees) who

opine that the employee turnover is largely affected by conflict at work place.

4.4.2.2. WORK INSECURITY

Conflict fuels employees’ work insecurity; 86.8% of respondents (505 employees) agree that

in a conflict ridden environment, the workplace reflects a war zone characterised by

suspicion, mistrust and harshness. This threatening environment leads many who are not

conflict mongers to fear for their life and plan departure ahead of time. Those who are faced

with conflict are moving cadavers because they are psychologically and emotionally

wounded.

4.4.2.3. WASTE OF TIME AND RESOURCES

Time and resources are wasted in cliques, rumours mongering and diversion from the actual

work due to lack of motivation resulting from conflicts at workplace. 81.1% of respondents

(466 employees) agree that a lot of time and resources are lost where employees take time

thinking about not only conflict but also about the perceived adversaries.

71

4.4.2.4. TIME SPENT BY EMPLOYEES WHILE THINKING ON CONFLICT

HE/SHE FACED.

As indicated in the figure no 14, employees who faced conflict at workplace spent much time

while thinking about it.

Figure no 14: Time spent by employees thinking about the case of conflict


On this point, 47.2% of respondents (274 employees) who faced conflict at workplace

revealed that they spend between 30 minutes to one hour per day, whereas 36.8% (214

employees) of those who faced the cases of conflict asserted that they spend one to three

hours per day. In the same perspective, 16% of respondents (93 employees) reported that they

spend more than 3 hours per days thinking about the cases they encountered. Referring to the

figures given above, it is seen that 52.8% of respondents (307 employees) who faced the

cases of conflict send more than an hour per day thinking about the conflict they encountered.

This concurs well with the results from personal interview whereby one participant said: ―

Nagize amakimbirane n’abayobozi banjye kubera kutumvikana ku nama nabagiriye yo

kwirukana abakozi, bintwara ingufu nyinshi ku buryo buri gihe nayatekerezagaho. Ndetse

navuga ko bitwara umwanya wanjye wose kuko niyo ngeze mu rugo nkomeza

kubitekerezaho.‖ That is to say, ―I experienced conflict with my superior because I gave

advice which was not matching with the superior’s wishes related to the illegal dismissal of

employees. This case took me much of my time thinking about it wherever I am‖.

72

4.4.2.5. ABSENTEEISM

It is true that employees engaged in conflict usually find reasons to absent themselves from

work place as a way of avoiding conflict and its impact. 77.7% of respondents (452

employees) agree with foregoing statement

4.4.2.6. HIGH EMPLOYEE TURNOVER

The rate at which conflict escalates in the institution reflects the rate at which the employees

leave the organisation in search of better places and employment. 69.9% of respondents (407

employees) agree that conflict at workplace has a high degree of contributing to staff

departure because they are not interested in tolerating conflict ridden environment. They see

departure as a way of avoiding conflict.

4.4.2.7. JUDICIAL AND PENAL EFFECTS

It is argued that the government loses huge amount of money through unnecessary cases

resulting from its officials who dismiss employees illegally. Available data indicate that

60.2% of respondents (350 employees) support this argument and base on several cases

similar to the foregoing. An employee x from X District in Eastern Province was

compensated 1, 0900, 000Frw due to wrongful termination of employment contract. A

similar case happened to another employee from X District in Northern Province where that

employee was paid a compensation fund of 7,670,940Frw. Whereas such cases are simply

many in number, it shows how the government loses funds through court fees, compensation

claims as well as time spent by it staff pursuing such cases in courts of law.

73

4.4.2.8. ORGANIZATIONS WHICH WERE SUED IN COURTS

In this study, respondents were asked their organizations were sued by courts.

Figure no 15: Organizations sued by the court of law


As it is indicated in the figure no 15, only 6% of respondents (11 leaders) said that their

organizations were pursued by the courts of law whereas 94 % of leaders (170 leaders)

reported that their organizations have never been sued by the courts of law.

4.4.2.9. ANALYSIS ON COST OF CONFLICT AND ITS IMPACT ON PUBLIC

INSTITUTION

Conflict costs not only materially but also in time and human capacity. Such costs are

reflected in the foregoing categories.

IN TERMS OF STAFF SALARY

In this study, it was identified that in case of conflict, many staff spend time thinking about

conflict. Among the 582 respondents, 139 employees have met conflict which represents 24%

of the total respondents. Out of 139 respondents, 47.2% equivalent to 66 employees

confirmed spending approximately 45 minutes thinking about the nature of their conflict.

36.8% equivalent to 51 employees spends 1hour 30 Min thinking about the status of their

conflict. 16% equivalent 22 employees spend 3 hours thinking about the nature of their

conflict each day.

The following calculation allow to estimate the cost of time wasted by employees as follow

74

Table no 14: Estimated cost of wasted time by employees who faced conflict

Percentage of

employee who

faced conflict

Employee

(1)

Minutes

wasted

(2)

Total

Minute /

day

(1*2)=(3)

Total days /

moths 22

days (4)

(3*4) =(5)

Number of

hours

(5/60)= (6)

Remuneration /

hours 280,000

(7)

Cost per

Month

(6*7)

47.2% 66 45 2970 65340 1089 1590 1,731,510

36.8% 51 90 4590 100980 1683 1590 2,675,970

16% 22 180 3960 87120 1452 1590 2,308,680

139

4224

6,716,160

Source: Own design, 2014

Considering the average salary category of these people the cost that can be considered to be

allocated to that work time is equivalent to 6,716,160 RWF per one month. It is important to

remind that the hypothesis is that the conflict does not evolve worsening or improving during

a certain period of time.

Using the same hypothesis and considering that 6% of institutions in our sample have

reported cases of conflicts the calculation of cost of the conflict using the average salaries of

the categories in which the employees fall is also possible.

IN TERMS OF STAFF TURNOVER AND RECRUITMENT

Once an employee is dismissed, the public institution will begin the process of recruitment of

the new employee. This activity will engage internal and external expertise. If we consider

the internal expertise, the staff will take at least five days in preparing the terms of reference

in order to hiring a firm. The post must be published in three newspapers. As indicated in the

figure no 17, the average for recruitment of a new employee will cost to the public institution

around 7,008,080 Rwf

75

Table no 15: Estimated amount lost in terms of recruitment process

ACTIVITIES Unit Cost /day ESTIMATED

COST (Rwf)

1 Needs assessment 5 days 12720 63,600

2 Publication of the post in news

papers

3 newspapers 80,000 240,000

3 Selection of candidates 2 days 12720 25,440

4 Hiring a recruiting firm : Preparation

and marking the test, oral interview,

recording

Depending on

the number of

candidates

ff 5,000,000

5 Placement and staff training 6 months 12720 1,679,040

Total 7,008,080


IN TERMS OF LOST CASES IN COURTS

The following cases illustrate the amount the courts charged the public institutions towards

their employees pronounced only in Nyarugenge High Court from 2009 to 2013. Only in

Nyarugenge High Court of law, the figures illustrate in the table no 18 show that the

Government of Rwanda has lost 135,381,563 Rwf due to the workplace related conflicts.

This exercise can be done in the hall country in order to know exactly the loss of the

Government of Rwanda in terms of public workplace related conflict.

76

Table no 16: Nyarugenge High court Judgments and their cost to the government of

Rwanda

No Reference Institution Amount

(Rwf)

1 RAD 0007/11/HC/KIG MINAGRI 2.050.000

2 RAD 0010/13/HC/KIG BNR 824.818

3 RAD 0046-0058/12/HC/KIG RDB 4.045.152

4 RAD 0073/12/HC/KIG Gasabo 470.000

5 RAD 0099/12/HC/KIG RRA 15.783.925

6 RAD 0106/12/HC/KIG Office National des Postes 11.000.000

7 RAD 0125/11/HC/KIG Etat Rwandais 4.022.274

8 RAD 0069/12/HC/KIG

RADA 0001/12/HC/KIG

Gicumbi District 7.670.940

1.314.853

9 RAD 0101/09/HC/KIG CNLG 1.153.580

10 RAD 0075-0079/11/HC/KIG MINAFET 82.500.000

11 RAD 0126/12/HC/KIG MINAGRI- KWAMP 3.688.250

12 RAD 0148/12/HC/KIG Etat Rwandais 857.771

Total 135,381,563

Source: Nyarugenge High Court of Law, 2014

77

4.4.2.10. COST OF CONFLICT AND ITS IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVANT

The conflict that occurred in public workplace has an impact on the employee in terms of

time consumed during the thinking on the conflict as well as pursuing the case on the court.

The consequences of the conflict at individual level are analysed taking into account the

direct and indirect cost as illustrate in the tables no 15 & 16 from the following case.

On 22/7/2011, a District Council dismissed an employee; the decision was taken by all the

councillors despite the item not being on the agenda. The Council dismissed the District

employee without assessing and evaluating the real cause prompting such dismissal. After the

dismissal, the council formed a committee to assess the misconduct of the dismissed staff in

the same meeting which expelled that staff. The employee filled a case against the District in

the court of law on 11/5/2012 appealing against the Council’s decision.

The first court hearing was set on 31/5/2012 but adjourned to 21/6/2012.

On 21/6/2012, the defense lawyer requested adjournment which the court granted and set

hearing on 12/7/2012 from which the case was decided to be pronounced on 27/7/2012. The

court case came in favour of the employee and the District was fined a sum of 3679823 Rwf.

The employee was dissatisfied by the judgment, and appealed the case in High Court on

24/8/2012 where next hearing was fixed on 24/7/2014, prompting the employee to claim for

reduction of time and the hearing was put on 9/4/2013. On 13/3/2013, the employee goes to

the HC to search the summons, the file was not found. Between March 2013 and 9 April

2013, the employee frequented registry office eight times requesting the summons which the

employee obtained painfully. Again, the hearing was adjourned to 11/4/2013 and 2/5/2013

respectively scheduled for 29/5/2013. The case was adjourned several times from 7/6/2013 to

21/6/2013, and 27/6/2013 respectively and finally, pronounced on 28/6/2013. The court

decision fined the district the sum of 7,060,940 Rwf for employee damages, 600,000frw for

legal fees and 10,000 for filing the plaint. Again, the employee was dissatisfied and applies

for review of the case. The hearing is fixed on 26/8/2013 and on 6/2/2014 declares the case

inadmissible.

78

Table no 17: Estimated direct cost lost by employee

No Activities Time

(days)

Unit cost

(Monthly salary =

700,000 Rwf):

Total cost

1 Preparing 3 31,818 98,961

2 Submission of the case in the court 1 31,818 31,818

3 Court fees in Intermediate court 4000 4,000

4 Hiring a 2 lawyers in intermediate court 2 750,000 1,500,000

5 Time to study the file with lawyer 2 31,818 63,636

6 1st hearing on 31/5/2012 1 31,818 31,818

7 Second hearing on 21/6/2012 1 31,818 31,818

8 Third hearing 12/7/2012 1 31,818 31,818

9 Pronouncement on 27/7/2012 1 31,818 31,818

10 Appeal on 24/8/2012 1 31,818 31,818

11 Court fees in High court 6,000 6,000

12 Searching summons 8 31,818 254,544

13 Hearing on High court on 7-21-27/6/2013, 3 31,818 95,454

14 Hiring a lawyer in high court 1 500,000

15 28/6/2013 1 31,818 31,818

16 Reviewing the case on 26/8/2013 1 31,818 31,818

17 Court fees in High court 6000 6,000

18 Pronouncement on 6/2/2014 1 31,818 31,818

19 Hiring 4 lawyers during reviewing 4 2,000,000

Total 4,814,957


79

Table no 18: Estimated indirect cost lost by employee

No Activities Time

(days) Lunch

Communication

fees Transport

Total

2 Submission of File case in

the court

1

1500 500 2000 4000

6 1st hearing on 31/5/2012 1 1500 500 2000 4000

7 Second hearing on

21/6/2012

1

1500 500 2000

8 Third hearing 12/7/2012 1 1500 500 2000 4000

9 Pronouncement on

27/7/2012

1

1500 500 2000 4000

10 Appeal on 24/8/2012 1 1500 500 2000 4000

12 Searching summons 8 12000 4000 16000 32000

13 Hearing on High court on

7-21-27/6/2013,

3

4500 1500 6000 12000

15 Reviewing the case on

26/8/2013

1

1500 500 2000 4000

17 Pronouncement on

6/2/2014

1

1500 500 2000 4000

19 28500 9500 38000 72000


The economic impact in terms of direct cost and indirect cost of the case identified above is

72,000 Rw + 4,814,957 = 4,886,957 Rwf.

These figures illustrate clearly that the impact of conflict at workplace provide loss to the

government as well as to the employees. Consequently, it is very important to put in place the

mechanisms of preventing conflict at workplace and once occurred, ensuring the good way

for managing the conflict.

80

4.5. CONFLICT POSITIVE IMPACT

Research has found that the positive impact of conflict results into constructive change and

development leading to effective management of public service resources and employees.

The positive impact of conflict builds team cohesion, improves organizational practices,

improves policies and procedures, reduces tasks’ vagueness, improves quality of decisions,

reduces conflicts at workplace enhances workplace management skills. This is further

elaborated in the table no 19 and proceeding paragraphs.

Table no 19: Perception of employees on positive impact of a conflict well managed

%Strongly

agree(1)

%Agree

(2)

Total

% (1+2)

Frequency Disagree

Build team cohesion 68.4 25.4 93.8 546 6.2

Improving organizational practices 67.7 27.1 94.8 552 5.2

Streamlining policies and procedures 68.6 26.1 94.7 551 5.3

Reduce vagueness of tasks 69.6 22.3 91.9 535 8.1

Improving quality decisions 73.2 23 96.2 560 3.8

Reduces conflicts at workplace

Enhances management skills 74.7 21.6

96.3 560 3.7


4.5.1. BUILDING TEAM COHESION (TEAMWORK)

Constructive conflict builds staff cohesion on common goals to achieve results. Available

data indicates that 93.8% of respondents (546 Employees) agree that teamwork spirit

contributes positively to staff cohesion, improved motivation and general improvement on the

environment at work.

4.5.2. IMPROVING ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES

Generally, conventional wisdom has it that improving organizational culture requires

participation of all staff. This is confirmed by 94.8 % of respondents (552 Employees) agree

that improving organizational culture is a way of improving staff performance and achieving

institutional results.

81

4.5.3. STREAMLINING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

With a functioning organisational system an effective functioning public service system

depends on staff teamwork to improve policies and procedures to provide orientation,

guidance and track the performance of the staff. 94.7% or respondents (551 Employees)

agree that teamwork within staff creates bedrock for policy improvement and procedures’

harmonisation.

4.5.4. REDUCES TASKS’ VAGUENESS

Because constructive conflict catalyses change, the theory is supported by91.9% of

respondents (535) who agreed that there should be harmonization within the tasks to ensure

effective performance.

4.5.5. IMPROVING QUALITY OF DECISION MAKING

Research has it that decisions taken without consultation bear negative results including loss

of time and money to the government. This time, available data points to 96.2% of

respondents (560 Employees) who agree that there should be improved quality decision

making to avoid ambiguity and irrational decisions.

4.5.6. IMPROVED WORKPLACE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT SKILLS

Conflict management skills are required in government institutions to mitigate conflicts.

Available data indicates that 96.3% of respondents (561Employees) recommended improving

conflict management mechanisms at work place through training of staff in conflict

management tools and skills.

82

4.6. CONFLICT PREVENTION MECHANISM AT YOUR WORKPLACE

Figure no 16: Conflict prevention mechanism at workplace


Conflict prevention mechanism plays a significant role. In this research, people were asked

whether they had conflict prevention mechanism at their work place. As it is portrayed in the

figure no 18, a number of 489 employees represented by 84 % of respondents to the

questionnaire asserted that at workplace they have conflict prevention mechanism whereas

15.1% of respondents (88 employees) said that they do not have conflict prevention

mechanism at workplace and 0.9 % of respondents (5 employees) do not know if the

prevention mechanism of conflict exist. Thus, the existence of conflict prevention mechanism

reduces conflict among employees at workplace in public institutions. For this reason, much

needs to be done because there are still people who do not have conflict prevention

mechanism at workplace.

83

4.6.1. EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTIONS ON THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS IN

PREVENTING CONFLICTS

In this research, respondents were asked whether their institutions played significant roles in

preventing conflicts among employees at workplace. The figure no 19 indicates that 86.6% of

respondents (504 employees) revealed that their institutions were responsible for preventing

conflicts among employees at workplace. However, 2.2% of respondents (13 3mployees) said

that their organizations do not show the willingness to prevent conflicts among employees.

On this point, 11.2% of respondents (65employees) reported that they did not know whether

their institutions were ambitious to prevent conflict at workplace. Therefore, the lack of

conflict prevention mechanisms in schools is more likely to increase the cases of conflicts

that occur among employees at workplace.

Figure no 17: Employees’ perceptions on the role of institutions in preventing conflicts


84

4.7. THE ROLE OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (PSC) IN WORKPLACE

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Public Service commission plays a significant role in workplace conflict resolution. In this

sub-section, we explored cases of people who have heard about Public Service Commission,

people’s awareness of the role of PSC to helping organization in workplace conflict

resolution, cases of employees who addressed their complaints to PSC, the successful

intervention of PSC where there was workplace conflicts as well fairness and partiality of

PSC in solving workplace conflicts

4.7.1. AWARENESS OF EMPLOYEE ON PSC

In this study, employees were asked whether they have ever heard about the Public Service

Commission. As it is indicated in the figure no 18, A proportion of 90% of respondents (524

employees) asserted that they know the Public Service Commission whereas 10% of

respondents (58 employees) reported that they have never heard anybody talking about the

Public Service Commission

Figure no 18: Awareness of employees about Public Service Commission

Source: Filed data, 2014

85

4.7.2. EMPLOYEES’ AWARENESS ON PSC IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION

During data collection, respondents were asked whether Public Service Commission helps in

solving conflicts at workplace. The figure no 19 shows that 83.3% of respondents (485

employees) reported that they were aware of the role of PSC in solving workplace conflicts

whereas 14% of respondents (81 employees) reported that PSC does not help in solving

conflicts. On the same point, 2,8% of respondents (16 employees) said that they did not know

anything about the role of the Public Service Commission.

Figure no 19: Awareness of employees on the role of PSC in conflict resolution

Source : Field data, 2014

4.7.3. CASES OF EMPLOYEE WHO ADDRESSED THEIR COMPLAINTS TO PSC

As illustrated on the figure no 20 the proportion of 49.5% of respondents (288

employees)asserted that they know the cases of people who addressed their complaints to

PSC whereas the remaining 50.5% of respondents (294 employees) asserted that they do not

know people who addressed their complaints to PSC. From the percentages in this figure, it is

clear that the majority of employees do not know people who addressed their complaints to

PSC.

86

Figure no 20: Awareness of cases of people who addressed their complaints to PSC


4.7.4. EMPLOYEES’ AWARENESS ON SUCCESSFUL OF CONFLICT

RESOLUTION

As it is shown in the figure no 21, a proportion of 72.3% of respondents (421 employees) said

that PSC intervenes successfully whenever there are workplace conflicts whereas 20.1% of

respondents (117 employees) said that PSC does not intervene successfully whenever there is

workplace conflict. Moreover, the remaining 7.7% of respondents (44 employees) reported

that they don’t know whether PSC intervenes successfully wherever there are conflicts at

workplace. During the personal interview, respondents revealed that some of the decisions

taken by the PSC are not implemented by the public institutions that violated the rights of

employee and there is no measure taken for those institutions.

87

Figure no 21: Employees’ awareness on successful of conflict


4.7.5. INSTITUTIONAL PERCEPTION TOWARDS PSC MANDATE

According to the law N°39/2012 OF 24/12/2012 determining the organisation,

responsibilities, and functioning of the Public Service Commission in its article 4, ―the

Commission shall be responsible for ensuring that policies, principles and laws governing

public service recruitments and administration are adhered to and put into effect by all

Government institutions‖. In this perspective, the PSC play an advisory role towards other

public institutions.

This mandate has oftentimes created implicit friction between PSC and other institutions that

several times shun its decisions related to salvaging the deprived public servants, despite the

fact that PSC has not come up sharply to suggest penalties to institutions disobeying its

orders. This is true of BNR which replied PSC in 2011-2012 report that in its mandate BNR

is independent of the PSC decisions and PSC cowed away at the detriment of the appealing

employee.

The serious problems that reflect PSC as a non-biting institution is where other public

institutions ignore its decisions but nothing is done to punish these institutions when it bears

the authority to do so as stated in Article 24.

88

Having the authority to override other institutions’ decisions creates a kind of frustration

among the affected institutions that perceive this action as undermining their authority hence

putting them in the position of weakness. This perception however, should be minimized by

creating strong sensitization campaign on the mandate of the PSC to improve collaboration

on public service staff management and sustainability.

4.7.6. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING PSC SERVICES

In order to improve the service provided by PSC, it is highly recommended to strengthen the

monitoring and evaluation system in order to track the public institutions which do not

implement PSC decisions.

As stated by the law establishing the PSC, in its Article 23, the decisions of the Commission

shall be enforced by the organs concerned by such decisions within deadlines set by the

Commission. “The decisions of the PSC on the appeals received must be implemented by all

institutions concerned by such decisions within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days. This

provision of law is not respected by the Public institution concerned”.

This implies that PSC decisions are binding to all public institutions concerned and therefore,

failure to respect such decisions reflects contempt to the public service commission.

A case in point, a participant to the interview cited a case where a public servant was victimised

by the District X; the victim reported the case to PSC which also wrote on 12/2/2013 requesting

the District to rectify the mistake and reinstate the employee. The District ignored the PSC

request and on 30/1/2014, the PSC reminded the District to respect it decision within 5 days,

without which the District would be penalised according to Article 24 of the Law cited above.

Because the Governor was copied on this letter, when five days elapsed, the Governor’s office

reminded the District to respect the decision of the PSC on 11/3/2014.During the personal

interview with the Mayor, recently the District Council has taken a decision to rehabilitate the

employee. This reluctance by the District carries a lot to say in terms of institutional

collaboration.

89

CONCLUSION

The study on causes of conflict and its impact at workplace has revealed that conflict is a part

of life in every institution and for every employee. It is inevitable. Professional staff, support

staff, superviaors as well as mangers, young and old, male and female, all face conflict during

their working period: employees’ behaviours, institutional culture (laws, regulations and

procedures), leadership management styles, recruitment and placement of employees,

harassment and influence of external factors. Conflict has a great impact on employees as

individuals as well as on the government of Rwanda because some public institutions have

been sued in courts of law and a lot of money has been lost. The research has identified the

role played by the Public Service commission in employee conflict resolution but a lot still

needs to be done in terms of conflict monitoring, prevention, and implementation of PSC

decisions in order to improve its service delivery towards its clients, other institutions and

recommendations to government.

90

RECOMMENDATIONS

To Public Institutions

Based on the findings it was noted that leaders, supervisors and employees communicate less

and create information vacuum which leads to suscipicion, mistruts and conflict.

Consequently, it is advisable to put in place a good working environment and strengthen

communication channels with employees by increasing meetings aimed at discussing

challenges related to work in order to collectively manage conflict causes at workplace.

Findings reflected that leaders take decision contrary to the law provisions, thereby leading

the insitutions to be summoned in courts of law. Leaders must be ware that decision making

should be done in consultation with the law, particularly when effecting staff stansfers,

dismissals and temporary suspension.

Research indicated that public servants, particularly females are harrassed by their superiours

due to their biases; to safeguard the employees rights and institutional dignity, leaders should

put in place mentoring and coaching programmes in oder to establish and improve their level

of competence. Leaders identified with sexual harrassment tendencies should be punished to

avoid such unbecoming behaviours that tarnish the public institutions image.


workplace; to avoid such conduct, institutions should put in place codes of conduct and

establish regular mechanisms monitoring staff adherence to code of conduct while at the

workplace. Because initially there was no law regulating staff conduct while in the public

service, the presidential order No 65/01 of 04/ march 03/2014 determining modalities of

imposing disciplinary sanctions to the public servants came into place to fill this gap; as such

public insitutions should refer to it to set up appropriate ways of imposing disciplline and

professional conduct at the workplace. Leaders, supervisors and employees should strive to

collectively adhere to the provisions of this order to ensure effective managemernt of conflict

at workplace.

Findings pointed to serious recruitment and staff placement malpractices. To avoid such

occurances, public insitutions should establish standards requiring use of external hiring firms

to conduct their recrjuitmnet execrise; affected institutions should strive to adhere to the

91

recommendations of candidates seconded by recruiting firms. And leaders caught in

manipulation of the results should be disciplined according to established procedures to send

message to other imminent abusers of public policy

External influence was noted as one of the causses of conflict at workplace because many

government agents engaged in this domain abuse its prelogatives; to ensure effective

collaboration of the public institutions for the good of us all, government agents caught

misusing such prelogatives in the line of duty should be held personally responsible and

punished to check the advancement of such inidvidual tendencies.

To Public Service Commission

Findings highlighted some institutions which claim to be independent of the PSC decisions;

in order to enhance the effective collaboration between these public institutions and the PSC,

sensitization should continue through awareness meetings and field monitoring visits to

ensure they fully understand the primacy of PSC in the oversight matters pertaining to public

employees;

Findings showed that PSC is far from the public employees that frequently seek its services

from rural areas. In this regard, it is advisable that the PSC decentralize its offices to operate

at least at District level or create mobile offices to ease travel costs and time of public

servants coming to seek services to the PSC from its head offices;

Findings indicated that leaders lack mastery of conflict mangement mechanisms; as such, in

synergy with MIFOTRA, PSC should strengthen the capacity of employees and leaders on

conflict management, human resources Management and employees’rights and responibilities

through trainings; the PSC should disseminate the laws related to human resources

management in public institutions;

Research indicated that PSC decisions are implemeneted late in comparison to set timelines,

which should encourage the PSC to strengthen its monitoring system in order to track the

Public institutions which do not implement its decisions in order to apply penalties to those

desobeing PSC orders. This will enhance positive response from public institutions towards

PSC directives and recommendations;

92

In order to promote effective management of conflict and prevent conflict at workplace, in

collaboration with stakeholders in conflict management PSC should put in place a conflict

resolution month in which it visits various organizations to evaluate their performance and

issue out certificates of recognition to the institutions which did not reflect conflict at the end

of the year as reflected by the rigorous evaluation conducted within the year

To Public servants


workplace; to avoid such conduct employees should consciouncely follow and respect the

provisions of the presidential order determining disciplinary sanctions on the public servants..

93

REFERENCES

Afzalur, R (1984). Managing conflict in organization, third edition, USA, Library of

Congress.

Acas, (2009). Managing conflict at workplace, retrieve on www. Acas.org.uk

Collins, S.D (2009), Managing Conflict at workplace, 2nd

Ed, South- Western CENGAGE

Learning, Series Editors

Morgan, D. L., (2008). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE

Publications, Inc. pp. 816–817.ISBN

Gibson, Ivancevich, and Donnelly (1994), Organizations, Irwin, Library of congress.

Kothari C.R (2004), Research Methodology, methods and techniques. New Dehli, New Age

International (P) Ltd, Publisher

Laton, D. (2008). Developing positive workplace skills and attitudes, Retrieved from

http://books.google.rw/books.

Lederach, J.P.(2013), Beyond intractability project, the conflict transformation consortium,

University of Colorado.

Lokke, W.O (2013). Best Practices and recommendations for patients care complaints

management within the Vancouver Island Health Authority, Univerity

of Voctoria.

Masters, M.E and Albright, R.R (2002). The complete guide to conflict resolution in the

workplace. New York, Library of congress.

PSC (2011) Annual report 2011-2012, Kigali, November, 2012.

PSC (2012): Annual report 2012/2013, Kigali, September 2013

Stoner.F. and FreemanR.E. (1992). Management, 5th

edition. USA, Prentice-hall

Nº46/01 of 29/07/2011

Presidential Order governing modalities for the recruitment, appointment and nomination of

public servants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number

http://books.google.rw/books

94

Law N°86/2013 OF 11/09/2013 establishing the general statutes for public service

Ministerial order N° 19/19 dated 08/07/2003, concerning training procedures for Rwanda

civil servants

Presidential Order Nº 17/01 of 23/01/2013 establishing the job classification in Rwanda

Public Service

Prime Minister’s Order N° 92/03 of 01/03/2013 modifying and complementing the Prime

Minister’s Order no 53/03 of 14/07/2012 establishing salaries and fringe benefits for public

servants of the Central Government

Prime Minister’s Order N°121/03 of 08/09/2010 establishing the procedure of performance

appraisal and promotion of public servants

95

ANNEXES

QUESTIONNAIRE

Introduction of facilitator

My name is…………., one of the consultants of I-5 SAFE Ltd company which is carrying

out the study on assessment of causes and impacts of conflict in the workplace prepared by

Public Service Commission

Purpose of the survey

This survey intends to collect data needed to understand the conflicts that occur at workplace

in public institutions; it aims at identification of causes and impacts of such conflicts on

individuals and institutions and to clarify in details the role that has been played by the Public

Service Commission to reduce conflicts. It will draw recommendations on how to avoid or

manage effectively the conflicts at workplace. Respondents of this questionnaire are

managers and employees from different public institutions to be selected randomly. I-5 SAFE

Ltd has been contracted by the Public Service Commission to carry out this research. The

information you provide will never be revealed to anybody but it will be incorporated with

other people’s ideas and views without specifying people’s names. If there is any question

you are not comfortable to answer or if you are not interested in answering all the questions

there is no problem but it is better to answer to all questions as asked. Thank you so much for

the support and contribution in answering to the following questions. Our schedule interview

will be less than 30 minutes. If you willing to contribute to the successful completion of this

study, we can start.

96

SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. Gender

1. Male 2. Female

1.2. Age

1.3 Marital status: 1. Single 2. Married 3. Divorced 4. Widowed

1.4.

Highest

Qualification

1. Diploma 2. Bachelor’s Degree 3. Master’s Degree

4. PhD Degree

1.5.

Hierarchical

level

1. Manager 2. Technical staff 3. Support staff

1.6

Working

Experience (in

years ) within

the institution)

1 Under 5 years

2 2. Between 5 and 10 years

3 Between 10-15 Years

4 More tha 15 years

1.7.

Working

Experience (in

years) in other

institutions

1 Under 5 years

2 Between 5 and 10 years

2. Between 10-15 Years

3. More than 15 years

SECTION II: TYPE AND SIZE OF ORGANISATION

2.1.

Name of the Public

Institution

Ministry............................................

Institution:........................................

Province.............................................

District...............................................

Sector.................................................

Health centre.......................................

2.2. Salary index I II III IV V VI VII

1.3.

Number of staff in

your organization

97

4.8. SECTION 3: PROVISION OF CONDUCIVE WORKING ENVIRONMENT

3.1. Does the organization provide all employees with

equal access to trainings? Yes No I don't know

3.2. Does your employer facilitate development in one’s

carrier? Yes No I don't know

3.3. Does the organization have staff induction and

mentorship programs? Yes No I don't know

3.4. Do you feel the organization provide security for the

future? Yes No I don't know

SECTION 4: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TOOLS, PROCESSES AND

PROCEDURES

Institutional Organization

4.1 Does the institution have the following

4.1.1. Clear mission and objective to everyone? Yes No I don't know

4.1.2. Clear code of conduct? Yes No I don't know

4.1.3. Clear policies &Procedures? Yes No I don't know

4.1.4. Clear and non-overlapping tasks? Yes No I don't know

4.2 Human Resources management system

4.2.1. Does the organisation have a clear Human

Resources management system Yes No I don't know

4.2.2. Does the organization have a standard appraisal

(evaluation) system Yes No I don't know

4.2.3. Are the evaluation critaria clear and objective

(SMART)? Yes No I don't know

4.2.4. Is the process of performance evaluation clear and

objective? Yes No I don't know

4.2.5. Is the Rewards and incentives demotion based on

the clear and objective evaluation process Yes No I don't know

4.2.6. Is the promotion of staff based on their Yes No I don't know

98

performance?

4.2.7. Is the dismissal of employee based on their

weakness

4.2.8 Does the organization have a clear punitive

component? Yes No I don't know

4.2.9 Does the punitive component comprise clear and

objective sanction criteria? Yes No I don't know

4.2.10 Does it have a clear and objective rewarding

component? Yes No I don't know

4.2.11 Does your organization follow the salaries laws

and procedures

4.2.12 Does your organization have clear criteria for

transfer Yes No I don't know

4.3 Salaries Yes No I don't know

4.3.1 Does your organization have a clear salary index Yes No I don't know

4.3.2 Are there unfair salary discrepancies in your

organization Yes No I don't know

4.3.3 Does it happen to modify someone’s say

inexpeditely ? Yes No I don't know

4.3.4 Does it happen the organization to apply pay cuts

without any concent?

Yes

No

I don't know

4.4 Recruitment and placement

4.4.1 Does the organization have a clear and

objective recruitment process? Yes No I don't know

4.4.2 If it exists, is it objectively followed? Yes No I don't know

4.4.3 If laws and regulations are not followed, what are the causes?

………………………………………………………………………………………

4.5 Discrimination

4.5.1 Do you have clear regulations about

inclusiveness: Gender, sick and disabled

people

99

SECTION 5: EXISTENCE OF WORKPLACE CONFLICT(Circle your answer)

5.1

Have you ever experienced a workplace conflict(s) in your organization?

1. Yes

2. Not at all

5.2

It is not conflict it is rather dispute or just disagreement

1.Yes

2.Not

5.3

If yes, how often workplace conflicts do occur?

1. Often

2. Sometimes

5.4

Where do the workplace conflicts mostly fall?

1. Inter-personal (Between individuals)

2. Intra-groups(Internal to groups)

3. Inter-groups(Between groups)

4.6. External factors (third parties)

4.6.1 Does your organization have an external

influence (from outside the organization) Yes No I don't know

4.7 Do you know your rights as an employee

vis- a- vis your employer? Yes No I don't know

4.7.1 Are your rights respected by your authority? Yes No I don’t know

4.7.2 If no, what are your rights frequently violated?

………………………………………………………………………………….

100

5.5

Where do the workplace conflicts mostly fall?

1. Between the management team itself

2. Between the management and the employees

3. Between groups of employees

4. Between individual employees

5.6

For Districts only

Types of groups: Where do the workplace conflicts mostly fall?

1. Between the District Council and the executive committee

2. Between Executive Committee and Security Committee

3. Between the Executive Secretariat and the executive Committee

5.7

Degree of intensity

1. Less intense (Avoidance)

2. Moderate(collision )

3. Clash

101

SECTION 6: SOURCES OF WORKPLACE CONFLICTS

6.1.Among the following causes of workplace conflicts identify those you think were the sources

in your organization

Following the order of importance rank the causes on scale of 4 to 1 where;

3-Strongly Agree 2-Agree 1 Disagree

Workplace conflicts are just caused by labor behaviour 3 2 1

Criticisms and gossip 3 2 1

Accusation 3 2 1

Misconduct 3 2 1

Provocative language 3 2 1

Individual stress 3 2 1

Jealousy 3 2 1

Sick leave documents forgery 3 2 1

Corruption 3 2 1

Desertion on work 3 2 1

6.2.Work related conflicts(institutional)

No clear policies and procedures 3 2 1

No clear objectives 3 2 1

Interference of other people into jobs 3 2 1

Lack of teamwork 3 2 1

Rigid procedures 3 2 1

Lack of enough resources 3 2 1

Pressure 3 2 1

Ambiguity of roles(Vague task assignments) 3 2 1

Interdependence of tasks 3 2 1

Disagreements on goals 3 2 1

Expectations from work are too high to available skills 3 2 1

Competition 3 2 1

Pay cut without consent 3 2 1

Unfair discrepancies in salaries 3 2 1

Unfair provision of different kinds of benefits (training opportunities,……..) 3 2 1

102

Unfair demotion or sanctions 3 2 1

Nonobjective promotion and rewarding 3 2 1

Unfair Transfer (Not basing on criteria) 3 2 1

Rewarding systems 3 2 1

6.3.Recruitment and placement

Non transparent recruitment process 3 2 1

Recruitment malpractices (favoritism, bribes, nepotism..) 3 2 1

Cheating on suitable staff during recruitment 3 2 1

Misplacement of skills and resources in the recruitment process 3 2 1

3.4. Leadership related causes

Communication problems from leaders 3 2 1

Weak leadership 3 2 1

Inconsistent in decision making 3 2 1

Nepotism and favouritism 3 2 1

Leadership dictatorial tendencies 3 2 1

Indecision 3 2 1

3.5. Harassment and violence

Mistreatment of female pregnant staff 3 2 1

Harassment to junior staff by supervisors 3 2 1

Constant focus on particular person without reasonable cause 3 2 1

Sexual harassment 3 2 1

Refusal of seak leave 3 2 1

3.6. External factors

Workplace conflicting laws 3 2 1

External command 3 2 1

Other causes (please specify)

……………………………………………………………………………………….

3 2 1

SECTION 7: IMPACT OF WORKPLACE CONFLICT

103

7.2.How do you rank the effect (positive and negative) of workplace conflict in your

organization

Rating Scale: Please select a number on scale of 4 to 1 where;

3-Strongly Agree 2-Agree 1-Disagree

7.3. Individual and perfomance

Brocken relationships ( lack of collaboration and cooperation) 3 2 1

Work instability& Insecurity 3 2 1

Lost of commitment to work 3 2 1

Voluntary resignation 3 2 1

Forceful resignation 3 2 1

Dismissal 3 2 1

Injuries 3 2 1

Broken Relationship between employees 3 2 1

Waste of time leading to miss deadline or affecting the quality of work 3 2 1

Decrease Productivity 3 2 1

High employee turnover 3 2 1

Waste of time 3 2 1

Waste of resources 3 2 1

Absenteeism 3 2 1

Insecurity 3 2 1

Strikes and rebellions 3 2 1

Judicial and penal effects 3 2 1

Others consequences (please specify)

………………………………….

3 2 1

7.4. Positive impact of conflict at workplace

Build team cohesion 3 2 1

Improving organizational practices 3 2 1

Improving policies and procedures 3 2 1

7.1. Do you think workplace conflicts have a considerable impact on the

organization? 4 3 2 1

104

Reduce vagueness of tasks 3 2 1

Improving quality decisions 3 2 1

Improve workplace conflict management skills 3 2 1

Allow adjustment of resource’s 3 2 1

SECTION 8: WORKPLACE CONFLICT RESOLUTION

8.1 What types of actions are taken in your organization in order to remedy workplace

conflict situations?

1. Such situations tend to disappear naturally 4 3 2 1

2. Both parties seek a compromise 4 3 2 1

3. The manager often helps resolve the issue 4 3 2 1

4. One of the parties has to leave 4 3 2 1

5. One of the parties has to cease the court

(Do you have cases)

4 3 2 1

6. The Public Service commission had to

intervene

4 3 2 1

Other (please specify) 4 3 2 1

SECTION 9: SPECIFIC CASES AND OPEN QUESTION

9.1 Have you ever been personally involved in any workplace conflict at your

work place?

1.Yes

1. No

9.2 If yes what was the cause of the workplace conflicts

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9.3 How much time per day could it take you to think about how to think about it and to

fix it?

1. 30 minutes-1 hour/day

2. 1hour-3hours/day

3. more than 3 hours/day

Other (specify)…………………………………………………………………

9.4 With whom did you ever have conflict(s) at work?

105

My supervisor

A colleague of a higher hierarchical level

A colleague of the same level

9.5 How do you react to conflict at work?

9.6 Have you ever discussed a conflict you encountered in the office with somebody else?

1.Yes, directly with the person I had the conflict with

2.Yes, with another colleague

3.Yes, with my superior

4.Yes, with the superior of the person I had the conflict with

5.Yes, with Human Resources manager

6.Yes, with A friend outside the organization

7.No

Other(specify)…………………………………………………………………………

9.7 Did you get the assistance from the person?

1. Yes

2. No

9.8

If yes, which kind of assistance

………………………………………………………………………

9.9 Do you have a conflict prevention mechanism at your workplace?

1. Yes

2. No

9.10 How does the organization deal with the conflict when they occurred (management)?

9.11 Do you think your organization can prevent conflict?

1. Yes

2. Not

Why and why not?

9.12 If yes, what can be done in your organization?

…………………………………………………………………………………….

9.13 If no, explain why?

……………………………………………………………………………………….

106

Legal case

9.14 Has your organisation been pursued by the court?

1. Yes

2. No

9.15 If yes, what was the cause?

...................................................................................................................................

9.16 What was the cause?

Who won the case?

Who paid the damages?

How much was paid?

9.17 Do you know cases of a staff who left the organisation due to workplace conflicts?

1. Yes

2. No

107

SECTION 10: ROLE OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (PSC) IN WORKPLACE

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

10.1 Have you ever heard about Public Service Commission (PSC)?

1. Yes

2. No

10.2. Are you aware that the PSC has a role of helping your organisation in workplace

conflict resolution

1. Yes

2. No

10.3. Do you know some people who addressed their complaints to PSC?

1. Yes

2. No

10.4. Does the PSC successfully intervene whenever there is workplace conflict

1. Yes

2. No

10.5. Do you believe that PSC participate in solving conflict in the right way?

1. Yes

2. No

10.6. Do exist some problems between PSC and other institutions based on conflicts

resolution?

1. Yes

2. No

10.7. If yes, what are those problems?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.8. What are your suggestions to PSC for improving their activities in preventing and

resolving conflicts related issues?

......................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

108

INTERVIEW GUIDE

1. Which mechanisms does you institution possess which facilitate employees to

perform their work

2. Have you ever been informed and supplied with staff laws, rules and regulations?

3. Which ways do you use to remind employees particularly human resource of their

performance rights and responsibilities?

4. Is the salary structure provided by the law? Are there reasons provided by the law for

the reduction of staff salary?

5. Does staff recruitment permit you to get the required quality staff?

6. Are there indicative situations which point to the existence of conflict at your

workplace?

7. What indicators do you see as pointers to the existence of conflicts?

8. In which categories do you frequently see conflict and what causes that?

9. Are there situations when you seek assistance from other institutions to solve

conflicts?

10. What causes these conflicts?

11. What do you perceive as the conflict impact resulting from staff/employees conflicts?

12. What do you see as strategies to manage such conflicts

13. What support do you get from PSC in terms of preventing conflict?

109

LIST OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS VISITED

No Categories Institutions

1 Ministries 1)MINALOC

2)MIFOTRA

3)MIGEPROFE

4)MINIJUST

5)MINAGRI

2 Government agencies 1)High Media Council

2)Rwanda Governance Board

3)National Assistance Fund for Needy Survivors of

genocide

4)Rwanda Cooperative Agency

5)Rwanda Agriculture Board

6)Rwanda national Police

7)Rwanda Library services

8)Rwanda Parliament

9)Office of Ombudsman

10)ONATRACOM

11)Rwanda Bureau of Standards

12)National Women Council

13)Rwanda Utility Regulatory Agency

14)National Commission of Human Rights

3 Provinces Southern Province

City of Kigali City of Kigali

110

No Categories Institutions N

o

4 Local Government Districts Sectors

1)Gasabo Ndera, Rusororo, Kimironko,

Kimihurura, Kinyinya, Jali,

Jabana, Remera, Nduba,

Rutunga

2)Gatsibo Gatsibo, Ngarama, Kiziguro,

Rugarama, Gitoki, Remera,

Muhura, Gasange, Murambi,

Kiramuruzi, Kabarore, Kageyo

3Rubavu Rugerero, Nyundo, Nyakiliba,

Rubavu, Kanama, Gisenyi,

Busasamana, Mudende,

Nyamyumba, Kanzenze,

4)Musanze Muhoza, Kimonyi, Gataraga,

Busogo, Muko, Nyange, Cyve,

Musanze, Kinigi, Rwaza,

Remera, Shingiro, Nkotsi

5)Ruhango Byimana, Bweramana,

Kabagari, Kinihira, Mwendo,

Ruhango, Mbuye, Ntongwe

6)Bugesera Ntaramaq, Nyamata,

Mayange, Gashora, Ririrma,

Rweu, Mareba, Shyara,

Ngeruka, Nyarugenge,

Ruhuha, Kamabuye, Musenyi

7)Karongi Murambi, Rugabano,

Rubengera, Bwishyura,

Mubuga, Gishyita, Gitesi,

Gashari, Murundi, Twumba,

Twankuba

8)Nyaruguru Rusenge, Kibeho, Munini,

111

Ngera, Ngoma, Nyagisozi,

Cyahinda, Ruramba, Mata,

Muganza, Kivu, Busanze

9) Rulindo Shyorongi, Busiga, Bushoki,

Base, Kinihira, Tumba,

Masoro, Murambi, Ntarabana,

Cyinzuzi, Mbogo, Kisaro,

Buyoga

5 Higher Learning

Institutions

College of Education

College of Agriculture

6 Hospital Musanze, Muhima, Kanombe, Kibirizi, Nemba,

Kabgayi, Nyamata, Karongi, Rubavu, Rwamagana,

CHUB, Muhororo

112

7 Health Centres Rubungo, Kimironko, Kinyinya, Kabuye, Nduba,

Gihogwe, Kayanga, Gikomero, Jali, Kacyiru,

Nyamata, Ntarama, Mayange, Juru, Rilima, Nzangwa,

Ngeruka, Mwogo, Ruhuha, Nyarugenge, Gashora,

Mwogo

Muhoza, Kabere, Busogo, Rwaza, Karwasa, Gataraga,

Kinigi, Shingiro, Gasiza, Bisate

Nyundo, Byahi, Gisenyi, Murara, Kigufi, Busasamana,

Mudende, Kanama, Gacuba II

Rutonde, Tare, Kinihira, Tumba, Shyorongi, Rulindo,

Kinini, Kiyanza, Masoro, Remera-Mbogo, Murambi,

Kajevuba, Rutongo

Rubengera, Kibuye, Karongi, Bisesero, Bubazi, Kiziba,

Rufungo, Rugabano, Kirambo, Mukungu, Musango,

Mwendo, Birambo, Kirinda, Muzanga, Gatare, Karora,

Mubuga, Gisovu, Mpembe, Mugonero

Kibeho, Muganza, Ngera, Munini, Coko, Cyahinda,

Maraba, Ngoma, Ruramba, Ruheru, Nyamyumba,

Byimana, Gitwe, Karambi, Muremure, Muyunzwe,

Kigoma, Ruhango, Mbuye, Kizibere, Kinazi,

Nyarurama, Mukoma

Kiziguro, Bugarura, Gasange, Gitoki, Humure,

Kabarore, Kibondo, Muhura, Rugarama, Ngarama,

Gatsibo

CAUSES AND IMPACTS OF CONFLICT AT WORKPLACE

Documents

Transcript of CAUSES AND IMPACTS OF CONFLICT AT WORKPLACE