Industrial Relations & Workplace Change - Essay Example

Industrial Relations & Workplace Change Name Instructor Institution Course Date Industrial Relations & Workplace Change Introduction Workplace change is a concept that ought to be adopted by many organizations that strive to remain relevant in the competitive market. Industrial relations are based on day to day activities that workers engage in. sometimes these activities become monotonous leading to low morale in workplaces. When such happens, management is supposed to take into consideration all the issues that employees prefer to be introduced in an organization to boost their morale. It should be noted that an organization can introduce change in various aspects not only based on staff morale but also based on organization’s productivity or attainment of set objectives. For the purpose of this paper, Delmonte Company will be chosen due to its large presence in many countries across the globe (Pederson, 2007). Delmonte Company deals with fruits where they are grown and process in their expansive forms. Recently the company has been in dire need to implement workplace change in order to increase their productivity which has highly been affected to climate change. Delmonte values its culture so much, such that the management aims to introduce any other form of change but maintain its culture among the employees. The need to introduce workplace change is therefore imperative for Delmonte to be at the forefront in engaging in healthy competition. Storey’s models of workplace change process may therefore be applicable as a way of fostering change at Delmonte Company. Workplace Change Most companies in Australia and the world at large are guided by flexible workplace relations. The need for workplace change is driven by the desire to link employees’ productivity to their remuneration with an aim of promoting innovation and efficiency of individual workers in an organization. The workers and employers are given an opportunity to negotiate for some local agreements and companies can respond to the competitive global market. The economic crisis experienced in 1970s as a result of oil price shocks reduced the chances of Australian economy to sustain high living standards without experiencing problems in balance of payments (Sappey, Burgess, & Buultiens, 2009). This forced the Australian government to initiate reforms that were aimed at enhancing competitiveness for the Australian industries in the global markets. The reforms included reducing tariffs, floating of the Australian dollar, and elimination of controls in foreign exchange to open Australia to foreign competition. Due to this competitive nature in business, it was important to establish formidable industrial relations and workplace change (Bamber & Lansbury, 2010). Changes have since been made in the Australia’s workplace relations laws in order to increase employees’ job security and conditions while providing flexibility at workplaces. Australian government and many other governments around the world, provide regulation on occupational health, safety, compensation of employees, payment for work done on public holidays, and leave. Workplace change is therefore aimed at bringing positive change in industrial relations which enhances the employer-employee relationship by ensuring that none is exploited. For any organization to be able to fit in the current competitive market, it should embrace workplace change which must involve employers and employees. Storey’s five ‘ideal types’ The Storey’s five models of work process change include Top-Down or the systematic type, Piecemeal, Bargaining for Change, Systematic-Jointism, and the Mixed Model type. The systematic type of idea type of process change follows the rules of project planning. Major limitation for this type of workplace change process is that the lack of involving the local managers leading to little sense of ownership of ideas by employees. This type of process change can be applied in companies that make technological machines especially where new equipment or machines are introduced such as in the motor industry (Bray, Waring, & Cooper, 2011). In the piece meal type of process change, various forms of communication are used. Employees are thoroughly briefed on any change expected in an organization such as the re-examination of pay schemes. One limitation of this type is that it can be used by competitors who learn of the expected changes be fore they are implemented. In such situations, the competitors in the market may come up with strategies to counter the expected changes and this might affect the changes negatively. This type can be used in monopoly companies or firms that are well established with unique products in the market. The third type of workplace change process is the bargaining for change type. It uses concessions that are based on bargains targeting various groups in an organization. Representatives from various groups or departments in an organization are involved in the change process. Such changes may include negotiations on contract adjustments (Bamber & Lansbury, 2010). This type is applicable in organizations that have huge number of employees such as British Rail. A limitation for this type of employment is that at times employees may not have full trust of their representatives unless they are selected democratically. The forth type of workplace change process is the systematic- jointism. It involves negotiating the total package with close scrutiny from trade unions. It is best applicable in organizations that embrace trade unions by allowing their employees to members of such unions. This type of workplace change process has a limitation in that the objectives of the trade unions are concentrated on pay and working conditions with little attention paid on the company’s objectives. The fifth type is the mixed model which involves shift from administration-centred initiatives to more strategic changes (Bamber & Lansbury, 2010). It is more applicable in many organizations as it combines elements in other types of process change. Its limitation is that it is relatively ambiguous as it tends to fulfill many changes at the same time. Company Example Delmonte Company has been in operation for many more than four decades and has its operation in more than thirty countries in the world. This company deals with fresh fruits where it grows them in large scale. The fruits include pineapples, mangoes, berries, water and sweet melons, passions, avocadoes, and many others. Once these fruits mature the Delmonte employs state of the art technology to process them. After processing, the fruits and juices are canned in readiness for local consumption and for export purposes. Delmonte has been selected for analysis because this firm desires a workplace change in many areas. This is partly because the company continues to expand and hopes to reach out more countries by the year 2030 (Pederson, 2007). The introduction of new companies that grow and process fruits has prompted Delmonte to change its approach especially fruit production in order for its products to remain the most sought by clients. The company also desires workplace change because it depends more on manual labour as a way of promoting the communities living around its firms. For high production of its commodities, there is need to improve the working conditions for its workers as there has been complaints that they are underpaid and that working conditions are unfavorable. If Delmonte does not implement workplace change it may not be able to achieve its long-term objective of being the leading fruit processing firm in the world by the year 2030. The company has an intention of introducing individual contracts to all its employees. For many years the company has been depending on casual workers who are mostly semi skilled and this has really been affecting its reputation and production output. To motivate is employees, the company intends to be reviewing the payment schemes after every two years where employees will be paid based on their performance (Pederson, 2007). The company also intends to participate more in corporate responsibility by introducing new approaches. Instead of just hiring people from the local communities to work in its firms, the firm has plans to introduce more viable solutions for increasing productivity and empowering local farmers. This would be done by educating local farmers on how to grow different types of fruits in their farms. All the farm inputs such as equipment and agro-chemicals will then be provided by Delmonte with a condition that the farmers can only sell their fruits to Delmonte. Another element of workplace change at Delmonte that will be analyzed will be culture change where the firm wants to put more focus on improving the working conditions of its workers due to the numerous complains by human rights bodies that the firm pays little attention to its employees’ needs. SWOT Analysis The most advisable of the Storey’s five types of workplace change processes for Delmonte would be the Mixed Model. The strengths of this type are that it will shift from the administrative-led leadership to a more inclusive type of leadership where employees will be involved in the change process. More attention will be focused to the employees with an aim of improving their not so commendable working conditions. Another strong point of this model is that short term contracts will be introduced to the casual workers in order to assure them of their job security (Bray, Waring, & Cooper, 2011). Their commitment will also be expected to be increased as they will fell more appreciated and valued by Delmonte as their employer. In the past, Delmonte has been using collective contracts in some areas where services of casual workers are required. With the mixed model, collective contracts will be eliminated and individual contracts introduced to all workers. In this case the contracts will be more personalized to address individual issues and this will make employees to feel being part of the change process. Weaknesses for this type of change process are that it remains relatively ambiguous because the shift from administrative systems to strategic units still implies that the strategic units still requires to be incorporated into the larger administrative systems for accountability. Another weakness in this type of change is that paying workers based on their performance may bring more administrative problems unless proper measures are introduced for performance analysis (Blyton & Firito, 2008). For instance there is a possibility of those employees doing manual work at the farms to even claim more payment than the executives in the Delmonte offices. The levels of performance therefore ought to be very clear and categorical. This type of workplace change also has opportunities. These include external environmental conditions such as labour market regulations in many countries where Delmonte is based, support performance-based payment schemes as favoured by mixed model (Bamber & Lansbury, 2010). The fact that workers will be having individual contracts implies that future supervision will be easier as any breach of contract will be dealt with at individual level. This type of workplace change process is however not without threats. Firstly, trade unions might feel sidelined and instead try to persuade workers to join their unions. Workers may also resist this model and give administration a challenge in implementing it. Discussion The current workplace change anticipated at Delmonte Company is geared towards making Delmonte a world class company that respects its employees by making their working conditions friendly. Apart from the mixed model type of workplace change process, the other four types of Storey’s model might not be applicable in Delmonte unless they are redeveloped to fit the situation at hand. Some of the internal environmental conditions that do not favour some of the Storey’s types of workplace change include the company’s management team, the current working policies that suggest workers to be remunerated based on old policies. External environmental conditions that might affect implementation of Storey’s type include the expectations of stakeholders (Bray, Waring, & Cooper, 2011). Whereas the top-down type advocates for the rules of project planning to be followed, the stakeholders might be interested more in the end result of the company and not the means of achieving the objectives. The top-down is no commendable for Delmonte because it does not involve the lower-ranked managers making them feel out of the decision making cycles. Whereas the piecemeal type of model allows for communication in for of briefings to employees, it may not be very practical in Delmonte because of the large number of employees involved. When employees are informed of all the changes expected to be made in the company, some of them might be opposed to the changes and may even challenge the administration. This eventually may lead to unnecessary delays in implementing new changes aimed at fostering industrial relations. Bargaining for change is another type of workplace change process that is not practical at Delmonte. Although this model encourages employees to raise their own ideas for workplace change, it is a very involving exercise because it tries to accommodate ideas from employees as a way of letting them be part of the change process (Blyton & Firito, 2008). Implementing urgent changes like the ones aimed at motivating workers, may take longer that expected if workers are allowed to bargain over it. Systematic-jointism type encourages the involvement of union leaders in making decisions that touch on change in workplace. The problem with this type is that different countries may have different labour unions. The objectives of such unions therefore remain elusive even though they claim to advocate for the rights of workers. Their definition for favourable working conditions may vary and this may create confusion among employees of Delmonte. When workers are not members of labour unions, they may address their grievances directly to the management and this will reduce chances of them being coerced to strike for their grievances to be attended to. The mixed model type of workplace change process therefore remains the most viable at Delmonte because it is addressing various issues that Delmonte would like to change in its administrative system. These include introduction of strategic units, and introduction of individual contracts as well as performance based payment schemes. Some structural and cultural changes such as holding of regular meeting with staff and having anniversary celebrations will also be enhanced. This model will also enhance overall objectives of Delmonte in being result-oriented by addressing all stakeholders’ concerns in improving industrial relations. Conclusion Industrial relations and workplace change are issues that need to be addressed in many organizations in the contemporary society. The need for change in workplaces is mainly due to introduction of many players in the market leading to increased competition in the business environment. The introduction of the Storey’s models of workplace change plays a major role in elaborating various models that can be applied in various organizations. All the five types of models have their advantages and limitations depending on where they are applied. For instance the top-down model does not involve all mangers in the change process making them feel unappreciated. The bargaining for change model involves employees so much slowing down the decision making process while the systematic-jointism supports the involvement of labour unions in organization’s change process. This is no commendable as it might lead to unprecedented strikes by workers. Upon evaluation of all the Storey’s types of process change at workplaces, the mixed model was considered to be the most favorable for Delmonte Company since it addresses many important issues. For instance, it supports the introduction of performance based payment schemes as well as introduction of individual contracts as opposed to collective contracts. This model may however be interfered with by some trade unions while some workers may be resistant to change. It is therefore significant for managers, employment relations practitioners, and researchers in the field of workplace change to understand all the Storey’s types of workplace change process in order to make a choice on the most appropriate model for various organizations. All the limitations of the models must also be considered for effective results. Bibliography Bamber, G., & Lansbury, R. 2010. International and Comparative Employment Relations. London: SAGE Publications. Blyton, P., & Firito, J. 2008. The SAGE Handbook of Industrial Relations. London: SAGE. Bray, M., Waring, P., & Cooper, R. 2011. Employment relations: theory & practice. Sydney: MacGraw Hill. Pederson, J. 2007. International Directory of Company Histories. New York: Routledge. Peetz, D. 2006. Brave New Workplace: How individual contracts are changing our jobs. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Sappey, R., Burgess, J., & Buultiens, J. 2009. Industrial Relations in Australia: Work and Workplaces. Sydney: Pearson Education Australia. Read More