Employee Relations - Case Study Example

The Current Issues in Employee Relations In the past, traditional firms have typically been autocratic, non-participative, and rigid entities. They have exchanged financial rewards for adequate task completion by employees. Employers needs and interests dominated the employment relationship. In exchange for loyal service, employees assumed they would enjoy the comfort of lifetime employment, and the benefits of such things as company-sponsored health insurance and retirement pensions. The mutual obligations of employer and employee play a subtle but powerful role in employment relationships. A number of factors affect the appropriateness and sophistication or refinement of employee and employer relationships. These includes the volatility of the market (domestic or global); financial conditions of the company - obviously, if a company is facing bankruptcy it is hard to spend money on employee training; corporate culture traditions and quality of past employment relationships; criticality of the human factor to enterprise success, and willingness to change these as needed; demographics of the company - many companies still have to face past biases and inaccurate beliefs regarding women, minorities, and older workers that affect training expenditures; and lower quality of education - new workers may need more training and education due to declining educational standards of a considerable number of countries. (Fishman, 2000) Moreover, the existence of nonconformity as a result of a dissatisfied workforce is seemingly apparent and thus the focus of this study. Conventionally, in the theories of organization, the setting comprises the channels and other kinds of inter-organizational affairs as well as the prevailing circumstances such as the political, technological, economic, legal, demographic, ecological, and cultural aspects of society. Ostroff (1992) have characterized it as convoluted, hostile, developing, pretentious, and transmitting blows to undoubting organizations. This environmental incertitude is a notion recurrently homologous with routine nonconformity. Thus, unanticipated abrogating outcomes are probable even when the introductory ambient factors affect their prospective activities since organizations have pitfalls in unerringly evaluating several aspects that might influence their future activities. (Gross and Etzioni, 1985). Moreover, indisposed understanding of social circumstances even could result to the declination of the organization to succeed. On the other hand, the concept of power is utilized as the fundamental illustrative concept of nonconformity, the center change from the firms refitting to an ambiguous setting to organizations that is aggressively defining, creating, and shaping it to suit their needs (Perrow, 1991). Power struggles are practicable results in co-optation and deposition of goals, both of which are archetypal theories pertinent to customary nonconformity. To persist, organizations in general must contend for means that may aid them in meeting their respective fundamental purposes. Frequently the said means are dearth because of many independent factors. It could be caused by the nature of the resource having a naturally limited supply. It could be also caused by the scrupulousness of suppliers by hoarding these products thus making it difficult to acquire. It could also be because of the courses of action engaged upon by regulators, rivals, and suppliers that make the supply limited. And it could also be a result of inherent responsibilities that demarcate organizations from acquiring the means that they require. In this contention, the concept of power is an instrumentality to a purpose. Co-optation, the procedure of transmitting denunciation to the balance of the environment by enthralling contemporary ambient factors into the leadership or policy-determining composition of a firm, could produce in finding a advantageous medium that divert organizations from its initial thrusts, thus the result depart from standard norms or contemplation. To these theories may be affixed two contemporary rationales that come across grounds of routine nonconformity in the organization. These include new institutionalism and the economic embedded perspective of Buss (1993). The new institutionalism stipulates that organizational models and demeanor reverberate the predominant values and beliefs that have become sanctioned as the norm. Moreover, cultural codes compose actors such as states, organizations, professions, and individuals, thus ascertain lawful objectives for them to endeavor and influencing practice and significance at the local level. Furthermore, impartiality in the institutional domain can be not only a mechanism to some objectives, but an objective in itself. This is due to the universal discipline of the institutionalized environment are repeatedly indecorous to particular circumstances, consequence may be suboptimal and, to some extent, unpredictable. For Buss, attempts at purposive action are embedded in concrete, ongoing systems of social relations that affect them (1993:487). In contrast to the new institutionalism, agency is central to the embedded perspective. Both contingency and constraint explain economic action; thus, the embedded perspective is another tool for explaining the systematic production of organizational deviance. Buss points out the ironic link between the bright side and the dark side: The very concrete social relations and structures (or networks) in the environment that play a role in generating trust and discouraging wrongdoing in economic exchange also increase opportunities for deceit and deviance (1993:491-93). There is considerable debate about what constitutes an employment relationship, and what can be taken to be its most important characteristics (Eisenstat, 2001). For instance, one school of thought draws attention to the idea that the form, shape and nature of work within the modern capitalist enterprise has undergone such a significant transformational change that traditional conceptions of employment have been made obsolete. According to this viewpoint employers increasingly demand more flexible and accommodative modes of production and service delivery from employees. To achieve this, non-standard patterns of work such as part-time, temporary and casual employment have become commonplace, and employees often have very little (or no) access to collective representation, all of which has resulted in a major reconfiguration of the labor market in most industrialized economies. An allied argument points to the reshaping of organizational structures, where point out that the traditional and easily understood boundaries between workers and their employing organization have become increasingly blurred. As such, the permeable nature of organizations results in complex multi-employer networking, public-private partnerships, commercial alliances and franchising systems that have serious implications for the legal and socially constructed image of the employment relationship. In many respects these issues and tensions serve to highlight the indeterminate nature of the employment relationship. It is also important to recognise that while workers and managers have some objectives in common, there are others where their interests can be diametrically opposed. Thus the employment relationship is one in which antagonism and co-operation can exists side-by-side (Gonzales, 2003). To give a simple and somewhat obvious example, employers desire profit maximisation, but at the same time employees want an equitable share in the profits from their labours. Nevertheless, even where interests are in potential conflict like this, it can be argued that there is some scope for them to be reconciled. For instance, one route to profitability is to engage the commitment and cooperation of labour, which can also satisfy employee desires for employment security, social status and identity. A lasting reconciliation of this type usually requires some form of compliance, if not cooperation, although one of the things that stands in the way of this is that the balance of power in the workplace is normally tilted heavily in favour of management. Thus the very existence of a trade union reflects a perceived need on the part of employees to erect and maintain enduring checks and balances on management power. The original scheme for describing styles was devised by who drew a fundamental distinction between two contrasting management frames of reference (Gratton, 2003): unitarist and pluralist. Unitarism and pluralism are ideological frames of reference, which reflect beliefs about whether or not an organization is (or should be) made up of members who have unity of goals and purpose, or at least one common goal and purpose that transcends all others and makes them all pull in the same direction. In Foxs view, style is driven by a managers ideological preferences, whereas later writers, such as place less emphasis on ideology as the prime determinant of style. Nevertheless, there is widespread agreement that style is closely associated with management behavior, and so it is likely to have a strong impact on the employment relationship, and could have a particularly strong effect on HR strategy. Indeed, it has been suggested the personnel policies of an organization are a strong indicator of style (Heuerman, 2004). Note however, the word used here is policy. Policies are rules that guide decision making, as and when certain contingencies arise , whereas a strategy is a plan or design to achieve aims, goals or objectives (Overman, 2002). Thus, style is very different from strategy and policies can restrict both strategies and styles. Instead, he argues that British managers merely justify their actions by calling them strategies, and that these actions are often short-term, self-interested and inchoate. Conversely, suggest that management is often aware of its inaction, and that the absence of action does not necessarily mean a lack of strategy (Eisenstat, 2001). Thus although style and strategy are concepts that are theoretically separate, in practice, and depending upon the particular circumstances and ideological values, they can be heavily. Management style could have a strong impact on other characteristics of the employment relationship. For example, from a labor process perspective, managerial styles of controlling labor have been linked to different phases of capitalist development. This suggests that external factors are likely to influence style, a point to which we return presently (Heuerman, 2004). For the moment it is sufficient to note that suggests that in terms of style, management can choose between allowing freedom and responsibility to employees, or exercising direct control over their activities. The former style implies that employees are seen as a valued resource, which possibly indicates high-trust relations and a proactive HR strategy as characteristics of the relationship. In contrast, direct control symbolizes a coercive approach, redolent of style of sweating in small firms. In this, employees are seen as an untrustworthy, disposable factor of production, which in turn implies unilateral methods of regulation. Employee relations refers to the system and techniques employed by organizations in dealing with their employees with the goal of organizational success in the long run. This involves the development of a competitive workforce geared toward the objectives of the organization by creating an environment conducive to the growth and development of each individual person’s potential. It is important for organizations to device a plan and standard for the selection, development and recompense of their workforce to ensure a sustained increase in individual performance which if achieved collectively will result in a successful organization. (Sims, 2002) Having an effective system of human resource management will result in a content and cooperative workforce which will then result to a higher individual performance and to a greater contribution to the organizations success. The significance of employee relations in organizational success will be better appreciated by looking into the interplay of the organization, represented by the people who implement ways of managing their workers, and its individual workers. There are ways of understanding and justifying the importance of employee relations one of which is through motivating the empowerment of workers and another is through delegation, support and feedback. People empowerment refers to a state of being of workers in an organization when they are placed in a work environment where they participate in decision making in relation to their individual work, they work within a defined humane limit respected by the organization, they take it upon themselves to monitor their own performance, they are given credit for their work which makes them proud to be part of the organization. When organization heads create this kind of environment, individual output is increased and the success of the organization’s endeavors is ensured. (Dew, 1997) Delegation, support and feedback refers to the entire process by which an organization selects its workers, designates their individual task; harmonizes the different skills and tasks of each individual worker to for the organization’s human resource to achieve its highest potential output; and evaluate each individuals’ performance for a specified time as well as identify individual contributions and allocate the corresponding appropriate rewards. Thus when organization managers are able to assess their workers performance they are better equipped to determine aspects that need improvement to be used in creating and improving work systems. (Sims, 2002) Employee relations involve two parties, the organization represented by its leaders and the employees. The organizational leaders are tasked with ensuring that the organization will achieve its goals through the efficient pooling of individual work contributions while the employees are mainly concerned with their output in relation to an expected corresponding compensation. Managers should be able to design a system designed to accommodate both the goals of the organization and the expectations of the employees. Organization leaders need to see to it that their employees work in the best environment, favorable to have a highest possible output, where employees are empowered and each individual’s skill is matched with the assigned task with output appropriately compensated. Bibliography Buss, D. 1993, Ways to Curtail Employee Theft, Nations Business. Dew, J.R. 1997, Empowerment and Democracy in the Workplace: Applying Adult Education Theory and Practice for Cultivating Empowerment. Connecticut: Quorum Books. Eisenstat, Russell A. 2001, What Corporate Human Resources Brings to the Picnic: Four Models for Functional Management. Organizational Dynamics, , pp. 6-14. Fishman, N. 2000, Signs Of Fraud: A Case By Case Review. The CPA Journal. Vol. 71. No. 3. Gonzalez, Maria. 2003, “Synchronized Strategies.” Journal of Business Strategy, May/June, issue # 5, pp. 9-11. Gratton, Lynda. 2003, “The New Rules of HR Strategy.” HR Focus, June, pp. 13-14. Gross, E, & A Etzioni. 1985, Organizations in Society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1985. Heuerman, Allan D. 2004, “Using Performance Management to Energize the Results Act.” The Public Manager, , pp. 17-20. Management. Connecticut: Quorum Books. Ostroff, C. 1992, "The Relationship Between Satisfaction, Attitudes, and Performance: An Organizational Level Analysis," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 963-974. Overman, Stephanie. 2002, “Big Bang Change: Re-engineering HR.” HR Magazine, June, issue # 4, pp. 50-53. Sims, R.R. 2002, Organizational Success through Effective Human Resources Read More