Line and Staff Conflicts

Line and staff managers are supposed to work harmoniously to achieve the organizational goals. But their relationship is one of the major sources of conflict in most organizations. Since such conflicts lead to loss of time and organizational effectiveness, it is always desirable to identify the sources of such conflicts and initiate necessary action to overcome them.

Theoretically, it is impossible to differentiate between line and staff functions and because of this, conflicts cannot be avoided. However, line and staff conflicts can be grouped into three categories conflicts due to line viewpoint, conflicts due to staff viewpoint, and conflicts due to the very nature of line and staff relation­ships.

The important causes of line and staff conflict as reported by line men:

(a) Staff does not know its place and wants to assume line authority. This feeling is generated more where the staff advisor forgets his position of having to be helpful rather than being in position to dictate.

(b) Staff officers encroach upon the line authority. They interfere in the work of line managers and try to tell them how to do their work.

(c) Staff takes full credit for successful programmes and hold line people wholly responsible for unsuccessful schemes.

(d) Staff men generally fail to see the whole picture objectively as they are specialists in their particular areas.

(e) The advice of the staff is academic, and is devoid of reality. Since they are not involved in the real work situations, their ideas are impractical. They emphasise about their area of specialisation rather than the interest of the organisation. In essence, they are armed-chair theoreticians, living in their own ivory towers, and totally cut-off from the realities obtaining in the organisation.

Conflicts due to Line Viewpoint:

1. Lack of accountability:

Line managers generally perceive that staff managers are not accountable for their actions. Such lack of account­ability on the part of staff leads to ignoring of the overall organizational objectives. Staff takes the credit for achieving the results, which is actu­ally achieved by the line people. But if anything goes wrong, they blame the line. Such perception among the line managers is one of the most important sources of line and staff conflict.

2. Encroachment on line authority:

Line managers often allege that staff managers encroach upon their authority by giving recommendations on matters that come within their purview. Such encroachments influ­ence the working of their departments and often lead to hostility, resent­ment, and reluctance to accept staff recommendations.

3. Dilution of authority:

Staff managers often dilute the authority and be- little the responsibilities of line managers. Line managers fear that their responsibilities may be reduced and they even suffer from a feeling of insecurity.

4. Theoretical basis:

Staff being specialists, they generally think within the ambit of their specialization. They fail to relate their suggestions to the actual reality and are unable to understand the actual dimensions of the problems. This is because staff is cut-off” from the day-to-day opera­tions. This results in impractical suggestions, making it difficult to achieve organizational goals.

Conflicts due to Staff Viewpoint:

1. Lack of proper use of staff:

Staff managers allege that line managers often take decisions without any input from them. Line just informs staff after taking decisions. This makes staff managers feel that line do not need staff. But even in such cases (where line takes its own decisions without consulting staff), if anything goes wrong, staff is made respon­sible.

2. Resistance to new ideas:

Line managers resist new ideas as they feel implementing new ideas means something is wrong with the present way of working. Such rigidity of line managers dissuades staff from implementing new ideas in the organization and adds to their frustra­tion.

3. Lack of proper authority:

Staff often alleges that despite having the best solutions to the problems being faced in their areas of specialization, they fail to contribute to organizational goals. This is because the staff lack the authority to implement the solutions and are unable to persuade the line managers (who have the authority) to implement them.

Conflicts Due to the Very Nature of Line and Staff Relationships:

1. Different backgrounds:

Line and staff managers are usually from dif­ferent backgrounds. Normally line managers are seniors to staff in terms of organizational hierarchy and levels. On the contrary, staff managers are relatively younger and better educated. Staff often looks down upon the line. Such complexes create an atmosphere of mistrust and hatred between the line and staff.

2. Lack of demarcation between line and staff authority:

In practice it is difficult to make a distinction between line and staff authority. Overlap­ping and duplication of work creates a gap between the authority and responsibility of line and staff. Each tries to shift the blame to the other.

3. Lack of proper understanding of authority:

Failure to understand au­thority causes misunderstandings between the line and staff. This leads to encroachment and creates conflict.

To overcome the line and staff conflict, it is necessary for an organization to follow certain approaches:

1. Clarity in relationships:

Duties and responsibilities of both line and staff should be clearly laid down. Relationships of staff with the line and their scope of authority need to be clearly defined. Similarly, line man­agers should also be made responsible for decision making and they should have corresponding authority for the same. Line should enjoy the freedom to modify, accept, or reject the recommendations or advice of the staff.

2. Proper use of staff:

Line managers must know how to maximize orga­nizational efficacy by optimizing the expertise of staff managers. They need to be trained on the same. Similarly, staff managers should also help the line to understand how they can improve their activities.

3. Completed staff work:

Completed staff work denotes careful study of the problem, identifying possible alternatives for the problem, and pro­viding recommendations based on the compiled facts. This will result in more staff work and pragmatic suggestions.

4. Holding staff accountable for results:

Once staff becomes accountable, they would be cautious about their recommendations. Line also would have confidence on staff recommendations, as staff is accountable for the results.

Grievances of Line against Staff:

(a) The staff authorities try to encroach upon the line authority and interfere with the work of line managers.

(b) Staff does not know its place in the structure and wants to assume line authority. This feeling is generated more when the staff authority forgets his position and begins to dictate.

(c) Attitude:

Staff wants to take full credit for success of programmes and hold line men fully responsible for unsuccessful programmes.

(d) Approach:

The advice of the staff authority may lack practicality as their advice purely academic and they do not understand the reality of the situation.

(e) Capriciousness:

The staff authorities may fail to study the problem fully and objectively as they are specialists in their respective areas. So, the staff authorities are considered to be short-sighted.

(f) Accountability:

As the staff authority is not vested with accountability for performance, they tend to be over-jealous and recommend a course of action which is not practicable.

Grievances against Line by Staff:

The staff authorities also complain against line executives.

The causes of conflict as reported by the staff are:

(a) Ego:

The advice of staff is resorted to as the last step as the line executives feel that asking for advice is defeat.

(b) Frustration:

The advice suggested by the staff may not be implemented. This causes resentment and frustration among staff.

(c) Indifferent:

The line authority often resists the new ideas given by the staff specialists and at times they are not prepared to listen to the staff proposals.

(d) Sabotage:

Line authorities are not making use of staff authorities full and try to sabotage the programmes.

Besides these there are other reasons are also exist which are responsible for the conflict:

(a) Inefficient Staff:

The inefficient and incompetent authorities may create conflict.

(b) Unity of Command:

Violation of this concept also may create conflict.

(c) Poor Delegation:

This is another source of conflict due to ambiguity in authority delegation and lack of clarity in defining line and staff relationship.

Resolving of the Conflict:

The conflict disturbs the peace and harmony in the organisation and this should be resolved peacefully.

(a) Well defined Authority:

It should be made clear that the line authority is ultimately responsible for implementation of the decisions and the staff is responsible only for providing advice and service to the line executives.

(b) Due Consideration:

Due consideration is to be to staff proposals to act upon and the line executives are to give reasons where they disagree with staff and convince them.

(c) Co-Operation:

Both the authorities should try to understand the orientation of each other. They should try to achieve and secure co-operation among themselves.