Significant Factors that Lead to Changes in Employee Relations - Essay Example

SIGNIFICANT FACTORS THAT LEAD TO CHANGES IN EMPLOYEE RELATIONS Introduction The field of employee relations has witnessed significant changes in the last thirty years. There was a remarkable lack of mainstream economic influence on human resource management and industrial relations which has been attributed to labor economics that functioned in an almost perfunctionary manner that reduced the whole gamut of human resource management and industrial relations to a simplistic problem of wage setting (Zaidi 1994, p. 289). This setting made the field of employee relations become relegated into mere production cost. The autocratic management style, a remnant of Theory X, merely treated employee relations this way, alongside seeing them as not valuable assets of the organization and not to be consulted for decision-making. The autocratic manager dictates orders to his staff and takes no recognition of consulting the employees on relevant decisions. Leaders in this kind of environment tend to control the situation. This kind of management style persisted for a very long time, until the democratic management style came in. At present, employee relations are more focused on ascertaining a productive people resource, a trend that was missing in the last decades. Employee relations are dealt with by resolving labor conflicts and informing the management about concerns that relate to employee welfare and long-term economic security. In a democratic workplace environment, human resource management gives more emphasis on employee development and their welfare, including pay and benefits, workplace condition, and job security, supporting the growing knowledge that people resource is the most important of all resources. Changes in Employee Relations and their Factors It may be inferred that in the past decades, employee relations was aligned to achieving economic production and was its ultimate goal, to the point that job security was always influenced by the rise and fall of the production market. This signifies a lack of prioritization of employee welfare, and placing them in second fiddle to economic production and profits. Rubinstein and Kochan (2001) state that the last two decades of the twentieth century was a time of tumultuous change and debate over what goal should corporations serve, and how the system of labor-management relations should be reformed. This is indicative of a growing concern for human resources, which may have been influenced by the emergence and reinforcement of several motivation theories. The past has also witnessed a corporate world in which shareholders and investors were reasserting control over corporations in order to increase shareholder returns, while employees were seeking for a louder voice on issues that both affected their jobs and long-term economic security (Rubinstein and Kochan 2001). This situation indicates an almost irreconcilable conflict between management and shareholders on one hand, and employees on the other hand. This scenario shows that it was hard for employees to experience a cooperative stance with the management, neither seeing organizational productivity as the end-goal of their efforts. A lack of attention for people resource clearly results in discontentment and a fast turnover, which in turn affects organizational outcomes and productivity. The lack of democratic concepts that guide workplace rules characterized employee relations in the past decades. Employees were subjected to rigid work rules and even contract restrictions concerning proper wearing apparel and personal appearance, while freedom of expression was not a recognized concept. Common examples of these are refusing women to work in slacks, not permitting them to work in plants if they had a bobbed hair, or if the men grew a longer hair. Strict implementation of rules prevailed to the point that even mere modification in clothing and hair was not allowed, unlike in contemporary period where job sites and offices no longer give much attention to these aspects. These are just clear examples of non-prevalence of freedom of expression in the workplace, reflected by the non-participation of employees in decision-making that concerns their job and the organization. It has also a significant connection to how employees were treated and valued. In today’s workplace trend in which workplace democracy is visibly seen and reinforced, self-expression has become a common thing, alongside participation in decision-making. There were theories that have governed the functioning of employee relations in the workplace during the past, ranging from ‘lower-level’ needs for security existence, or hygiene through ‘higher needs’ of self-actualization, achievement, and growth (Haslam et al., 2008). These theories, as applied to organizational domain, has tended to assume that the best source of work motivation for employees is fulfilling the employee’s need for challenge and development (Haslam et al., 2008). However, new trends in employee relations indicate that the motivational impact of different needs changes, as a function of the salient norms and goals associated with self-categories (Haslam et al., 2008). It also suggests that an employee’s willingness to engage in a fruitful undertaking increases, following manipulations of group-based pride and respect. This post-modern focus suggests that group pride, group support, and teamwork are important dimensions that enable individuals and groups to work fruitfully, productively, and happily. It may be noted that such emphasis was absent thirty years ago or so, as organizations and firms tended to focus more on earnings and profits and had not related the employee relations development and production output in the whole management system. This condition is contrary to the mode of employee management in the past, which was leaned toward autocracy, in which the focus of firms and organizations was how they may best regulate and attain profits even to the disadvantage of the workers. Putting employee’s welfare at stake in order to accumulate more earning and profits does not apparently result in exhibiting employee potential and establishing a healthy employee relationship. Just like employees, management also needed greater flexibility, involvement, and more cooperation from the work force, along with higher quality and productivity. It was found out that such management needs are not possible to be delivered given that the work environment is threatening and adversarial on the point of view of the employees. It was exhibited in the past that as this need arises, there was a corresponding necessity for unions to undertake new strategies in organizing workers and a source of power, as well as access to the levels of management who makes the key strategic decisions that influence worker welfare. Moreover, a greater voice in decisions that affect their jobs and work environment was called for by workers, while at the same time demanding more assurance towards job security through their unions and their employers (Rubinstein and Kochan 2001). These pressures have sparked a decade of conflict and innovation in labor relations, prompting the organization to start experimenting with the quality of working life, and began exerting efforts to involve employees in problem-solving groups (Rubinstein and Kochan 2001). The growing importance of people resource and workplace democratization gave a significant change on how employee relations were regarded by the organization. The lack of emphasis on the importance of the relationship within and among people resources led to a passive work ethics and lower productivity as compared to the times when employees’ relations and development were given emphasis. As a new form of development, employee relations have tended to focus on collectivism rather than individualism as management encourages the development of collective representation by employees and allowing them a collective voice in management decision-making (Purcell 2008). This is apparently a shift from the old management tradition, in which employees were not given a voice in management decision making. The shift may explain the decline of trade unionism and collective bargaining agreement that used to characterize most organizations, since management tends to focus now on what benefits the employees. As mentioned, employee participation serves as an impact of workplace democratization in which freedom of expression is permitted. Employees developed a workplace atmosphere that gives them a venue in airing their grievances best, or simply participating collectively in an important decision that concerns their welfare and that of the management. This leads to a more cohesive relationship among them, alongside a participatory employee relationship that leads to greater productivity. This atmosphere gives employees a room for establishing teamwork, to which a group decision is usually based, and is a proven effective way to accomplish a task. Teamwork has thus become both a by-product of workplace democratization as well as a way of life among employees in a democratic work environment. In the same way that collectivism is a result of workplace democratization; organizations have tended to utilize this style as well, especially on how management policy is directed towards inhibiting or encouraging collective representation. It must also be noted that contemporary human resource management tends to emphasize sets of policies designed to maximize organizational integration, employee commitment, quality or work, and flexibility – concepts that were not given much focus in the past decades. Several organizations are trailing the path of policies of employee involvement, which has been an outcome of giving importance on people resource as a likewise important ingredient of organizational productivity. As emphasized, this has not been given importance to in the past, as organizations tended to equate employee relations management into a vast labor market, alongside how the common commodity market is treated. The stringent policies in the past that focused only on wages and remuneration undermining the other dimensions of employee needs, including their esteem and recognition, is the opposite of the new employee relations trend. We may note that this has been a result of constant study in the realm of human resources and employee relations. In United Kingdom, the stances of organizations and firms pertaining to a more cooperative environment and their emphasis on intrinsic and extrinsic employee development also paved way to the decline of trade union membership and collective bargaining agreements, which were prevalent in the past (Towers 2003). This transformation is a product of a system of collective relations that started to characterize most firms and organizations, indicating a healthier relationship between management and employees. Conclusion As the changing times give more diverse views on raising organizational productivity, a likewise development in human resources and employee relations emerges. Workplace democratization is in fact a by-product of the change in the global economic markets, management paradigms, and shift in organization behavior. The lesser emphasis on economic outputs, i.e. profits, towards employee relations and its connectivity with organizational productivity is what most firms are focused on. After all, people resource is the most important resource of an organization, and managing it well often leads to fulfilling management needs: improved productivity, higher quality, and attaining organizational objectives. Seeing the employees as a rival for accumulating greater profits through their demands for greater benefits, remuneration, and a greater voice in decision-making will not serve the management any better. The current human resource trends prove that this assertion is undefeated. References: Haslam, Alexander S., Powell, Clare, and Turner, John, (2008) Social identity, self-categorization, and work motivation: rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organizational outcomes. Applied Psychology. Vol. 49, Issue 3, p. 319-339. Peterson. Tim O. and Rohrs, Alan E., 1986. Managing the most important resource: ‘people. A book of readings. Ginn Custom Publishing. Purcell, John, 2008. Mapping management styles in employee relations. Journal of Management Studies. Vol. 24, Issue 5, p. 533-548. Rubinstein, Saul A. and Kochan, Thomas A., Learning from Saturn: a look at the boldest experiment in corporate governance and employee relations. Cornell University Press. Tjosvold, Dean, 1986. Working together to get things done: managing for organizational productivity. Lexington Books. Towers, Brian, 2003. Overview: The changing Employment Relationship. In The handbook of employment relations (Brian, Towers (ed.) Kogan Page. Zaidi, Mahmood. A., 1994. Challenges for Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations: An Economic Approach. In Management-qualitat contra rezession und krise (Berndt, Ralph, ed.). Minnesota Industrial Relations Center. Read More