A Radical Change in Management Practice - Essay Example

Perspective on Employee Relations Introduction In the contemporary HRM world, there has been a radical changein management practice with management and employee bargaining going down the level of the firm. By so doing, a level of interest has been generated in employee-employer relations that transcend the traditional specialist management role (Rose, 2008). It is becoming apparent with the changing times that managers need to work on creating more synergy between commercial objectives and employee needs. In this regard, it is critical that scholarly and practitioner attention be directed to variant conflicts that characterize and in some cases even define employer relations in organizations. The nature of imperfect labour markets today as well as the cutthroat competition limited jobs by desperate employees can and has in some cases, resulted in substandard industrial relations (Salamon, 2000). This in many instances leads to and escalates conflict in employee relations. However, while conceding that conflict may indeed be inevitable, it can be managed and controlled through a proactive and vibrant bargaining process that can be used to ensure a smooth transition in whatever transaction the Organization takes part in and the interests of its staff. This paper will discuss the notion of inevitability of employee conflict by examining various theories and literature demonstrating some of its causative factors and methods that have been developed in employee relations for managing it. To create a better understanding of the nature conflict in employment relations, it is important that the concept is first understood, and its constituent notions explained. Employer relations are by no means neither straightforward nor easy concept that can be tied down to a generic definition. Its meaning tends to vary widely depending on whom one is asking (Lewis, Thornhill & Saunders, 2003). In American HRM literature for instance, it is understood as the corpus of HR, in a functional sense it encapsulates the relations between employees and employers in the world place. On the other hand, a the British interpretation of the same covers a wider scope which cuts across specific workplace issues and covers even the interactions between the state, employer relations and labour unions. In these terms, employment relations involves both the micro and macro level relations which are notably absent in the American context (Gennard & Judge, 2002). In American context, employer relations are unlikely to encompass industrial relations as comprehensively as it can in a UK or Australian set up since in both cases they extend to the macro level. Industrial relations affect everyone that derives an income from working for an Organization or in relation to one irrespective of their capacity. The general quality of employment and industrial relations is considered to be one of the main drivers of industry performance since the can have significant impacts on the working lives of employees. Among the pertinent issues are efficiency and equity, the impact of the economy and political situation and other external factors. Given the importance of industrial growth and stability to the economy, the contribution of ER to the economy and vice versa is critical themes in policy consideration in national, corporate and even personal discourse. At the centre of the ER conflict are divergent views about which are the most efficient methods to apply in the management of organizational-employee relations as well as the representatives of both side where in most case unions represent the former. On the one hand of the continuum, there are those that hold the most valuable asset for any organizations is the staff and under the right circumstances, managers and are duty bound and have most to gain by deploying every asset possible to promote the wellbeing and working conditions of their Human Resource. The role of government is deemed as passive in this case and the state has a responsibility to allow employer and employees relationship autonomy by creating a decentralized and flexible working environment. In this context, managers are opposed to trade unions and other worker centred industrial organizations, which they see as reductive on the functionality of free market forces. On the other hand, employees might see their colleagues losing their jobs and they feel that they are working very hard and being exploited without support from the state. In such a scenario, trade unions will come in and challenge the trend that allows a government to leave employers at the mercy of market forces and capitalistic exploitation The frames of references they use to approach and conceptualize them as far as the variant issues pertaining ER are concerned primarily underpin the understanding of people within and without the business community. Debates on the conflict in ER are divided across two particular frames of reference or theoretical viewpoints namely Unitarist and Pluralism. Unitarist theorists hold that the assumptions and values that that construct workplace conflict are not inevitable and while conflict may from time to time emerge between workers and managers or within the industry, tends to be an aberration of an otherwise harmonious relationship (Olakitan, n.d). In this framework, managers and employees are seen as having the same interests and that they are the ultimate growth and success of the Organization and as such, they word jointly towards this common goal. In such cases, taking to account the cohesion that is expected to exist between the two parties, it is unlikely that any conflict that may arise would result in insolvency (Abbott, 2006). Divisions are not attributed to the operations process but rather personality disorders inappropriate recruitment and promotional practices. Under this framework, rational management is seen as the best way to bring about balance and management teams are expected to ensure their recruitment practice is equitable and fair. Furthermore, the communication framework in the organizations should factor in the personal needs of the staff and make allowances for individuals prone personality conflict. Such should either be suppressed and it the situation calls for it dismissed to maintain balance in the organizations. Under this framework, employees are required to recognize the organization as the sole source of power and labour unions, shop stewards and other sources of power that may be seen as contradictory to the organizations are discouraged. The assumptions of this school of thought have been instrumental in developing three major schools of philosophical and practical thought. These are Tylors theory of scientific management that is based on the assumption that employment management should commence from the assumption that employees are not mature and they have limited self-centred and time limited aspiration (Abbott, 2006). Companies that subscribe to this management practice tend to minimize work to its essential elements to keep the skills employees need to achieve organizational objectives at a minimum. Internal and external tensions are suppressed through this management to ensure that the management has superiors knowledge about the organizational structure and has near absolute authority over them. Another branch of the Unitarian theory is the human relations theory under which workers are considered qualitatively variant from other means of production. Therefore, it is assumed that if they are denied autonomy, they will come up with ways to subvert the control methods that are being used to suppress their freedom. In this context, the key role of management is to organize and if needful manipulate workplace relations such that employees can feel personal satisfaction and enjoy a sense of respect and concern for their employer. The third theory has to do with human resource management practice, which differs from the previous ones in that it holds that tension in the organizations can be eliminated by creating a psychologically nurturing contract. The employer relations are founded on the assumption that the forces that unite managers are far stronger than those that divide them. Therefore, it is the prerogative of managers to facilitate the harnessing of these unifying forces and create a workplace where collaborative effort is encouraged across the board irrespective of rank and personal predisposition. The basis of the HRM theory is that barriers based on class, other social stratifications should be overcome, and open lines of communication opened to bring about shared understanding in the workplace. The unitarist perspective is radically different from the pluralist, which perceives conflict as a minor and temporary hurdle in the communication between management and employees. However, pluralists view this quite different, as aforementioned, to them conflict is an inevitable consequence in the work environment that can be attributed to the diverse interest of the employer and employee (Budd, Gomez & Meltz, 2004). Instead of seeing conflict as a temporary notion that only needs to be addressed with both sides pushing in the same direction, it sees it as an unavoidable consequence of the conflict between employer and staff. The conflict interests include the distribution of wealth status and power; in the pluralist framework, employers and employees are bound to conflict and unless these issues are resolved, the organizations may end up collapsing. The variant interests are attributed to unequal distribution of income, which invariable results in unequal effort increases the potential of people benefiting at the expense of the other. The pluralist framework draws from the Marxist criticism where Karl Marx critics the capitalist ideology because capitalism grows through exploitation of the working classes by the upper class. In his opinion, industry can only grow when the workers are exploited and pluralist theorists are well aware of this reality (Abbott, 2006). This makes the interest of the workers and employers literary irreconcilable since it is very difficult for them to ignore the fact that their efforts increase the value of the company but does not do as much for them. According to the pluralist perspective, conflict is structural and no amount of managerial manoeuvring and manipulation can eliminate it from the workplace (Budd, Gomez & Meltz, 2004). It is just as much a part of the organizations as any of the other factors of production and while it can be managed, it can never be eliminated. This is why employees usually need to be members of a union, not necessarily, because they will perpetually be in conflict with their employers but because they know there will always be potential for it. Comparatively speaking, the pluralist viewpoint seems more fathomable than the unitarist one since it is nearly impossible to imagine a situation where employees are satisfied with their wages and working condition, so much that they align their interests with those of the employer. While this might be possible to a limited extent depending on how well employees are treated, perfection in the employment context would be nothing short of utopian. In any discourse appertain to the pluralist perceptive in employee or industry relations (Storey & Sisson, 1993), in the context of inevitability of conflict; it is necessary to keep in mind that the theory is formulated in the Labour Process Theory. This theory holds that on hiring an employee, an organization is buying their capacity for work and it is the job of the employer to convert the employee into the labour they need. When an employer and employee agree to the terms and condition of the jobs, the automatically are subject to the unwritten or stated agreement dubbed the work effort bargain. This bargain however encompasses a potential for conflict wince it is open to varied interpretation by both parties; many of the conflicts between the employer and employee actually arise from their divergent interoperation of the same. The main issue has to do with the level of autonomy allowed to an employee as well as the precise levels of efforts that employees are expected to put in their work. Sometimes a worker will feel they are expected to put in more than they thought they had bargained for which can result in disagreements. Keenoy and Kelly propose three major sources of conflict in this theory; conflict over interests, control and motivation (Keenoy & Kelly, 1996). This far, the first conflict has been frequently mentioned and moderately covered as the conflict that arises give the contradiction between the personal and professional objectives in the employee and the goals of the organizations. In most cases, this conflict will revolve around issues of money and compensation. It often emerges from the fact that employers according to the pluralist theory will always seek to get the most out of their staff at the least price possible. On the other hand, staff will wish to get the most money for the least effort possible, this results in considerable conflict over potential for labour and rewards with what is delivered. The second conflict is for control where employees submit to the authority of the employer on gaining employment but after they have the job there is an issue just how much control should the employer exert on them. To put the Pluralist framework into perspective, consider the following case study by Bray (2005). Terry has worked with the Organization for over a decade and although he does know his contemporaries in of the firms earn slightly more he is content. There are opportunities for growth and management treats the staff fine according to him. He is part of a union but he has never had to look for them for support because he feels his employers are fair to him and his colleagues. They work in relative autonomy and given that they are often given bonuses depending on the firms performance, they feel in their way as if they own a part of the company. Based on previous observation, this would make an archetypical example of the unitarily perspective at work. There seems to be near perfect harmony between the employees and employer, the seemingly have the same objectives and conflict is near non-existent as there is a sense of satisfaction and mutual appreciation. However, in the next part of the analogy, the pluralist reality is brought to the fore. After a new manager is posted, the employees are required to sign a performance contract that stipulated among other things that they would undergo a period of six months probation before they can be confirmed as employees. To Terry and his colleagues, this is a very suspicious move since it looks like it is intended on getting a way to fire some of the staff members. They appeal to their union representative who offers to help them fight for their rights and the contract is ultimately quashed and replaced with a more sensible and less potentially oppressive one. However, although the second one was signed, many of terrys colleagues accepted job offers from the competition and although he remained, he did not feel the same sense of loyalty to the organizations as he had before. Ultimately, in this second part of the analogy, the underlying conflict between managers and staff is brought to the surface. When they were hired, employees were expected to provide a certain amount of their work effort time and talent but this was not very explicit. Management thinks they have been underperforming and tries to bully them into signing a contract that makes them vulnerable (Bray, 2005). In this case, it is apparent that there is a contention between what the employers thinks they paid for and what employees think they are being paid for. Such conflict is manifest in many organizations where staff seeks to earn as much as possible for the least effort or a least the maximum from their given efforts while the employer tries to achieve the opposite. Conclusion In the end, it is quite clear that in any organization despite the perception of harmony, in reality there is always an underlying tension that embodies the conflict. However, viewing conflict as being a permanently negative construct is not very realistic. In essence, conflict is only harmful if it results to decrease or entire collapse of an industry, when employees and employer clash they are often forced to come up with compromises that set a precedent for solving future conflicts of the same nature. In addition, it allows each side to hear the grievances of the other, which is instrumental in enhancing communication within the organizations. For example, even when negotiations do not lead to the solution that either side wanted, aside from making contingencies much more can be gained. Employers will get more information on the needs and attitudes of their staff so they can factor in this knowledge in formulating new policies on the conflict and related matter. In conclusion, conflict remains a part of the organizational matrix and even in circumstances where it appears the employees and staff have similar interests, there are bound to be conflict which if not addressed can have adverse effect on all the stakeholders contrary to the unitary assumption that conflict is only personal. References Abbott, K., 2006. A review of employment relations theories and their application. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 1(2006), 187-199. Budd, J. W., Gomez, R., & Meltz, N. M., 2004. Why a balance is best: the pluralist industrial relations paradigm of balancing competing interests. 2004, 195-227. Gennard, J. & Judge, G., 2002, Employee Relations (third edition). Wimbledon: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Keenoy, T. & Kelly D., 1996. The employment relationship in Australia. New York: Harcourt Brace. Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., & Saunders, M., 2003. Employee relations: understanding the employment relationship. London. Pearson Education. Bray, M., 2005. Industrial relations: A contemporary approach. New York. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Olakitan, O.O., n.d., An examination of some determinants of industrial conflict in employee-employer relationship. ilo.org. [Online] Available at: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/iira/documents/congresses/regional/lagos2011/5thsession/session5b/conflicts-emp.pdf [accessed 15 Dec. 2014] Rose, E.D., 2008. Employment Relations. (3rd ed).London: Pearson Education Ltd. Salamon, M., 2000. Industrial relations: theory and practice. London. Pearson Education. Storey, J., & Sisson, K., 1993. Managing human resources and industrial relations. London. Open University Press. Read More