Employee Relations Management - Essay Example

? Employee Relations Study Introduction Debates have been established with an aim of exploring various perceptions and meaning of term employee relations (Leat, 2001, 33). In this case, some scholars have argued that there are substantial differences between various perspectives towards employee relations. Other scholars argue that there are concepts applied in describing employee relations intents of purposes interchangeable. Apparently, employees' relations concern the study of rules, regulations and agreements through which employees are managed, whereby they are explored individually and collectively. For instance, this exploration prioritizes the individual, as opposed to collective relationship, which varies among companies based on values of management (Cradden, 2005, 44). Nonetheless, it is necessary to understand that relationships occur in a range of circumstances, different degrees and impinge upon relationship. For example, a legal context that involves a level of individual in legally enforceable contracts that prevail between employees and employers. Unitarism This is a perspective through which companies are considered to be an individual or groups sharing a common interest, objective and values, which are pleasant and integrated. On the other hand, the management has right to manage employees, legitimately and rationally, thereby representing organizations and interests of capital. In this case, this perception is considered to be a single focus of employees’ loyalty; in fact, this becomes a basis of establishing legitimate authority with the organization (Bacon and Storey, 2000, 407). Moreover, unitarism is a perspective, which is related to management’s supports and interests. Besides, it is a perspective, which has been attributed to ‘team’ approach. Strengths of unitarist perspective Unitarist perspective has a crucial strength associated with an explicit objective of integrating interests from employers and employees, thereby enhancing employees’ commitment and loyalty (Guest and Peccei, 2001, 209). In this case, this is strength that utilized as a basis for stakeholder management while employees are considered significant stakeholders in an organization. Consequently, this perspective encourages treatment of employees in a way that portrays the effort of ensuring the welfare of the organization. Apparently, unitarist perspective focuses on the role management in establishing a situation where employees and organization are gaining, thereby considering alignment of their interests. In this case, this perspective is a compulsion for managers to surpass their managerial styles in the process of managing their employees' relations, thereby emphasising on leadership capabilities (Cradden, 2005, 44). Moreover, this perspective encourages managers to be convincing and influential leaders in the organization, thereby eliminating the need for a trade union. Unitarist perspective leads to an assumption that considers stakeholders to be rational members with aims of identifying common interests. Actually, this is a perception, which offers a steady rationale, which stresses common objectives to facilitate achievement of a stable employee relations system. Furthermore, unitarist perspective is in essence individualists in its approach towards employees’ relation; in fact, this works best for individualist in IR systems. There has been a shift of numerous IR systems from trade unions to individualist paradigms; thus, unitarist perspective has proofed to be significant in relation to this form of IR perspectives. Weaknesses of unitarist perspective Unitarist perspective has a limitation caused failure to realize that there are powers associated with inequalities between employees and employers. Moreover, the inequality between employees and employers leads to generation of diverse forms of conflicts in the organization (Kessler and Purcell 2003, 315). On the other hand, there are expectations that managers should exert significant power over employees in order to determine the work conditions. For instance, in situations involving blue-collar jobs, workers does not act like owners of power; in fact, they accept decisions made by managers, thereby submitting to former’s power. Therefore, conflicts are perceived in negatively; instead of being considered a force, which reflects inequalities, thereby being considered as chances of regaining harmony in the organization. On the other hand, there are various forms of conflicts; in fact, there are other conflicts, which are considered to be good for organization development. For example, there are two forms of conflicts which include one that assist to increase team effectiveness and another one that assist to team. In this case, the conflict that increases the team effectiveness is refered to as ‘A-conflict’, while the other form of conflict that assist the team is referred to as ‘C-conflict’ (Esquivel and Kleiner 1996, 43). In fact, it is segregated among the group while being considered a substantial decision areas and processes (Chuang et al. 2004, 28). Therefore, unitarist perspective has a weakness of failing to consider conflicts as a source of positive influence; despite the notion that conflict can lead to improvement of positive results for groups in organizations (Chuang et al. 2004, 28; Choudrie 2005, 65). Unitarist perspective has another limitation associated with effects on intra-group trust, whereby the relationship between the task-associated conflicts relationship conflicts perceived negatively (Chuang et al. 2004, 28). In this case, creating a negative perception towards conflict serves as a way of delimiting the way task conflicts can be applied in the process of performance enhancement. Furthermore, unitarist perspective is not clear on the way particular worker sentiments can be sufficiently integrated into organizational goals, due to the deficiency of description of ways to identify common interests by members of the organization (Ackers and Payne 1998, 539). Therefore, unitarist perspective has a limitation associated with failing to offer directives for Human Resource managers on ways they can pursue it effectively (Storey 2000, 12). Seemingly, this perspective assumes that members have a rationality that is ample to make a substantial decision regarding ways to integrate personal and organizational interests. Pluralism There is a significant disparity between Pluralists and unitarists, which is based on the set of assumptions and values regarding conflicts between employees and employers in an organization. In this case, Pluralists have a perception that business organizations are considered composite social construction, which are made up of various interest groups. Apparently, Pluralists have a perception that management and employees are segregated into two groups based on the functionality of the factory system. In this case, this perception is considered perpetually subscribing to various values and goals (Gennard and Judge, 2002, 43). Therefore, based on this perspective, it is evident that Pluralists base their arguments references in regard to assumptions that there are different sources of authority within an organization. On the other hand, there is a potential of conflicts occurring between employees in regard to organizations work tasks and rewards. In this case, Pluralists recognize the need for considering conflicts to be inevitable in an organization, and with this perspective, conflict is considered necessary and healthy for an organization. Moreover, Pluralists argue that conflicts serve as a way of recognizing and dealing with employees problems an organization (Bacon and Blyton, 2007, 814). In addition, Pluralists argue that conflicts offer a chance for providing a spur to employers, whereby they can focus on innovation methods through which improved performance can be increased in the organization. Pluralists hold a perception that there is need to acknowledge prevailing competition for the source of authority, which is evident in the form of shop stewards or trade unions. In this case, Pluralists are expected to provide a chance for facilitating organizations cope or deal with issues regarding industrial relations and a collective basis (Dzimbiri, 2008, 23). Marxism There was an aspect of redundancy associated with Marxist frame of orientation in regard to the perception towards deterioration of Soviet Union, disintegration of communism in the Eastern Europe and the fall of ‘radical thinking in the west. Nonetheless, different studies derived from the school of thoughts have become influential (Gennard and Judge, 2002, 74). Apparently, these studies are based on vast assumptions regarding the nature and cause of conflicts in organizations. On the other hand, these studies have become valid assessment of previous two frames of orientations and other related theories. Consequently, this has led to arguments that there is a radical perspective gathered principally from Karl Marx, whereby he argued that capitalist societies are attributed to perpetual class struggles (Gennard and Judge, 2002, 74). In fact, these struggles results from inequities in the process of distributing wealth and skewed ownership of means of population. Moreover, Marx asserted that there are capitalist political systems and values that are based on values of different classes, which have the inability of controlling internal inconsistencies of capitalism (Ross and Bamber, 2009, 24). In this case, Marxist argue that there is a form of impoverishment, which draws workers into identifying a common class interest and this spurs them into organizing against exploitation. Therefore, application of Marxist frame of references in dealing social conflicts that occur in the context of organization may be perceived to be a natural result to capitalism or outcome of competition between social classes (Ross and Bamber, 2009, 24). Industrial conflicts are perceived to be a manifestation of struggled played in an organization. Actually, the perspectives of Marxists towards industrial organization are microcosms of the entire society (Kaufman, 2004, 39). Moreover, the Marxist perspective involved an assumption that power in capitalist society is evaluated in terms of the owners of capital or the means of production, other than the owners and sellers of resource utilized as labour. References Ackers, P. and Payne, J. (1998) ‘British trade unions and social partnership: rhetoric, reality and strategy.’ International Journal of Human Resource Management 9, (3) 529-550. Bacon, N. and Storey, J. (2000) ‘New employee relations strategies in Britain: towards individualism or partnership?’ British Journal of Industrial Relations 38, (3) 407-428. Bacon, N. and Blyton, P. (2007) ‘Conflict for Mutual Gains?’ Journal of Management Studies 44, (5) 814-834. Choudrie, J. (2005) ‘Understanding the role of communication and conflict on reengineering team development.’ Journal of Enterprise Information Management 18, (1) 64-78. Cradden, C. (2005) Repoliticizing Management: A Theory of Corporate Legitimacy, Ashgate, Guildford. Chuang, Y., Church, R., & Zikic, J. (2004) ‘Organizational culture, group diversity and intra-group conflict.’ Team Performance Management 10, (1/2) 26-34. Dzimbiri, L.B. (2008) Industrial relations in a developing society: the case of colonial, independent one-party and multiparty Malawi. Germany: Cuvillier Verlag. Gennard J and Judge G (2002) Employee Relations. London: CIPD. Gennard, J. and Judge, G. (2002) Employee Relations, 3rd ed . Wimbledon: Institute of Personnel and Development. Guest, D.E. and Peccei, R. (2001) ‘Partnership at work: mutuality and the balance of advantage.’ British Journal of Industrial Relations 39, (2) 207-236. Kaufman, B. (2004), The Global Evolution of Industrial Relations: Events, Ideas and the IIRA, International Labour Office, Geneva. Kessler, I. and Purcell, J. (2003) ‘Individualism and collectivism in industrial relations.’ In Industrial relations: theory and practice. ed. P.K. Edwards. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Leat, M. (2001) Exploring employee relations. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Ross, P. and Bamber, G.J. (2009) ‘Strategic choices in pluralist and unitarist employment relations regimes: a study of Australian telecommunications.’ Industrial & Labor Relations Review 63, (1) 24-41. Storey, J. (2000) ‘Human resource management: still marching on or marching out?’ In The realities of human resource management: managing the employment relationship. eds. J. Storey, and K. Sisson. Buckingham: Open University Press: 3-32 Read More