Employment Relations in Non-union Firms - Assignment Example

1. Identify and discuss, with reasons given, which commonalities and differences of interest (namely: unitarist, pluralist and radical) exist in the above scenarios of the LIPC Integraton Plc.’s departments. One commonality can be seen in terms of the point that members of both the design department and the assembly department of LIPC Integration Plc. are not satisfied with the performance-related pay and reward system that is being implemented by the organisation. Thus, the views of members of the two departments are not shared by their employers. However, the reasons why the two departments are opposed to the performance-related pay and reward system are different. On one hand, the design department is dissatisfied with the pay system because the members believe that their work is more involving and thus they should be paid more for their talent and creativity. On the other hand, the members of the assembly department are opposed to the performance-related pay system because they have not seen any change in their pay due to the nature of their job, which is clearly planned and rigidly designed that nothing can be done to improve their productivity. The scenarios above show the similarities and differences between the pluralist and radical approaches to the relationship between an employer and employees. The design department (pluralist) seems to be view conflict as inevitable as argued by Edwards (2003, p. 11). By taking a pluralist approach, groups participate in determining the rules of employment and they have their own bases of authority (Edwards 2003, p. 11). From the case study, it can be seen that the design department is trying to define how the members should be paid and who should own the intellectual property rights of the work that they produce. On the other hand, the assembly department (radical) seems to take the approach that the members should be able to control the means of production and the means that support it as noted by Combe (2014, p. 270). For instance, members of the assembly department want more flexible work hours, numerous short coffee breaks, and higher pay since they see no other way that their work can be improved so that they can increase their productivity and thus benefit optimally from the performance-related pay and reward system. There are clear differences between the pluralist and radical approaches to employee-employer relationships and the unitarist approach. In the case study, the design department and the assembly department are opposed to the performance-related pay and reward system. But the fabrication department, which can be said to have taken the unitarist approach, has welcomed the system. A unitary view is whereby there is an identity of interest between employees and their employer (Edwards 2003, p. 10). The view of the fabrication department is that the performance-related pay and reward system has inspired some members of this department to work longer hours, to be more attentive, and to be more dedicated to their tasks. Thus, in both the fabrication department’s and the professional assessors’ view, the level of production has increased because of the performance-related pay and reward system. The only thing that employees in the fabrication department want from their employer is training, which the employer has considered to offer. On the other hand, LIPC Integration Plc. is hesitant to give in to the demands of the design department and the assembly department and is considering hiring people in the design department as consultants and outsourcing the services of the assembly department. 2. Which recommendations would you make in relation to each of the above departments? Aim to compare and contrast the unitarist, pluralist and radical approaches in your answers. For the design department, I would recommend that LIPC Integration Plc. considers the advantages and disadvantages of hiring employees in this department as consultants rather than full-time employees as has been suggested by the work-based assessors. For instance, one advantage of hiring personnel in the design department as consultants is that the company will reduce the cost of maintaining them as full-time staff. However, the disadvantage is that by hiring such creative and talented people only as consultants, the same people are likely to work for rival organisations and give them their design ideas, which will jeopardise LIPC Integration Plc.’s market competitiveness. At the same time, the organisation has to evaluate how it will transit from the hiring people in the design department as full-time employees to employing them as consultants since indications are that the personnel currently work as full-time members of staff. LIPC Integration Plc. will thus have to outline its strategy and ensure that it complies with existing employment laws and regulations. An ideal situation for the company would be unitarism, where the views of the management are shared by the employees in order to have shared aims and objectives and goals relating to services, products, suppliers, customers and other stakeholders (Combe 2014, p. 270). LIPC Integration Plc. can still consider radical and pluralist approaches and allow employees in the design department to control the work environment by providing more competitive pay based on the creative ideas that the employees generate. Turning to the fabrication department, I would recommend that LIPC Integration Plc. provides the training required by members of this department. Since members of the fabrication department have indicated that the performance-based pay and reward system has motivated them to work longer and to be more attentive and dedicated, the management of the organisation should identify the specific training needs that each employee in this departments needs in order to offer training that will help improve their productivity. By identifying each individual’s training needs, LIPC Integration Plc. would be applying the pluralist organisational methodology, which arises from the view that people face different kinds of challenges and therefore have dissimilar experiences (Kelemen & Rumens 2008, p. 48). This would also enable the members of the fabrication department to have better control of their tasks based on the radical approach. In regard to the assembly department, I would suggest that LIPC Integration Plc. considers making the job in this department more motivating to the employees. In this regard, the company needs consider other ways of making it possible for the members of the assembly department to increase their productivity so that that they can benefit from the performance-based pay and reward system. Even though the employees’ radical stance has been that there is nothing that can be done to improve their productivity and the management has insisted that it cannot increase the employees’ pay nor change the job structure, it is possible for the two sides two strike a balance and hence avoid adverse steps such as outsourcing the assembly department services in another country. Notably, such a step would lead to effects such as demoralisation as the employees fear losing their jobs, loss of jobs to the community and litigations due to the layoffs. Hence, the management should strike a balance between radicalism, pluralism and unitarism to enable the employees in the assembly department to better manage their tasks. 3. Which are the key methods that may be used to give employees in the above departments at LIPC Integration Plc. a ‘voice’? Make specific reference to their unique needs and perspectives, as described in the case studies above. Employees in the design department can be empowered to have a voice if the management of LIPC Integration Plc. appreciates their talents and offers them incentives to use their creativity to generate more ideas. According to Dundon and Rollinson (2004, p. 53), voice can sometimes be described as the ability of an organisation to make use of employees’ thoughts and creativity. This means that encouraging employees to come up with innovative ideas that promote the competiveness of an organisation makes them have a feel of their input in the organisation and hence their say. In regard to the employees in the design department of LIPC Integration Plc., offering them rewards for their creativity and giving them more space to innovate will assure them that their ideas are appreciated and hence empower them to do even more for the betterment of the company. In regard to the fabrication department, since the employees are satisfied with the current performance-based pay and reward system, the best the organisation can do is ensure that the employees suggest the kind of training they require. Therefore, it would be prudent to create mechanisms to facilitate mutual communication and participation between the management and the employees (Cowling & Mailer 2013, p. 3) so that both sides can air their views on what kind of training is required, how it will be conducted and how it is expected to benefit the organisation. More importantly, the organisation should find ways of involving employees from the other departments since the jobs of the three departments are interdependent. This will create a mechanism by which all employees can air their voice on issues that affect them (Cowling & Mailer 2013, p. 3), which will ensure that the training focuses on the critical aspects that need to be improved. The management can even use this opportunity to ensure that the training integrates the skills required by the fabrication and assembly departments, so that the employees in the two departments can experience an expanded work environment that will be even more interesting and motivating. For the assembly department, training the employees to promote job rotation, job expansion and job significance can help them have a voice in the organisation. Job rotation involves switching an employee between two tasks; job expansion is where an employee performs more than one task; and job significance is concerned with increasing an employee’s sense of autonomy (Dinitzen & Jensen 2010, p. 86). The training programme should consider the needs of the employees in both the fabrication and assembly departments so that they can perform shared tasks. The training will enable rotation of employees in the two departments and allow them to have an expanded job mandate and facilitate job significance especially for the members of the assembly department, who have complained that their job is repetitive and monotonous. This approach will help in bringing a shared view between the management and employees, especially those in the assembly department who initially felt neglected. Their increased input in the company’s affairs, including the contents of the training program, would thus give them an increased ‘voice’ (Cooney & Stuart 2012, p.10).     References Combe, C 2014, Introduction to management, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Cooney, R & Stuart, M 2012, ‘Introduction: trade union in vocational education and training in theory and practice’, in R Cooney & M Stuart (eds), Trade unions and workplace training: issues and international perspectives, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, pp. 1-22. Cowling, A 2013, ‘Developing a strategy for human resources’, in A Cowling & C Mailer (eds), Managing human resources, 3rd edn, Routledge, London, pp. 5-20. Dinitzen, HB & Jensen, LK 2010, Organisational theory, Hans Reitzels Forlag, Cipenhagen. Dundon, T & Rollinson, D 2004, Employment relations in non-union firms, Routledge, London. Edwards, P 2003, ‘The employment relationship and the field of industrial relations’, in P Edwards (ed.), Industrial relations: theory and practice in Britain, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 1-36. Kelemen, M L & Rumens, N 2008, An introduction to critical management research, SAGE Publications, London. Read More