Unitary and Pluralist Perspectives of the Roles of Employees-Employers Relations - Essay Example

Unitary and Pluralist Perspectives: Implications for understanding the roles of employees, employers and the in employee relations Instructor: Date: Introduction  Employment Relations has emerged as an essential aspect of HRM particularly with a view to establishing effective relationship between the employees and employers. Establishment of healthy and effective relationship between the employer and employees becomes important when organizational success depends on power balance between the two essential components within the organization. Without this balance, organizational stability is threatened with negative impact experienced in reduced profit margins as employees lower their output due to lack of motivation to offer their best in achievement of organizational goals. Realization of the impact of employment relations has therefore resulted in introduction of contemporary frameworks to address issues arising in the workplace during the course of interaction between employees and employers. Among the current employment relations framework the include unitary and pluralist perspectives that aim at shifting this relations towards commitment and shared interest in the workplace instead of focusing on more traditional managerial control and conflict. Unitary and pluralist perspectives on employment relations provide significant tools through which the relationship between employers and employees can be understood (Williams 2014, p.12). The essay seeks to evaluate the implications of these perspectives on the roles of employers, employees, and the state in employee relations by drawing on relevant theory and appropriate examples of practice. Unitarist perspectives Unitarist perspective of employment relations is based on the on management belief that their function within the organization extends to directing and controlling the workforce as a basis for achievement of set economic and growth goals of the organization. To achieve these objectives, the management assume the entire rule making authority within the organization with employees being required to observe them without contributing to the formulation f such rules. Unitarist perspective of employment relations emphasises the importance of teamwork with all the members of the organization directing their efforts towards achievement of a common objective. Additionally, everyone is encouraged to offer their best to the organization while also advocating that employees and management have distinct roles that calls for everyone to accept their place and function without compliant. The unitary view of employment relations is perceived as autocratic and authoritarian and favours the management due to support for management’s right to manage (Armstrong and Taylor, 2014). The adoption of unitarist perspective is consistent Marxism theory about the relationship between working class and the owners of factors of production who want to maximize their profits by utilising the labour to the maximum as a return for wages. Implication of Unitarist perspective on employees, employers and the state in employee relations The Unitarist perspective of employee, employers and the state employment relations has several implications on the exercise of authority in the workplace. Firstly, employees are not accorded the opportunity to add their perspective to different managerial decisions. Unitarist perspective provides for the existence of a single source of authority (the management) in the organizational decision making processes leading to elimination forces perceived as opposing the powers of management (Ross and Bamber, 2009). The outcome for the workplace is that interventions from the government and trade unions become limited, as the management does not welcome employee membership. Further, in cases where unions exist, discouragement from organisational management means there do not attract significant membership due to lack of opportunities for recruitment. This is the case in Britain where membership to trade unions has been on constant decline or limited growth rate (Whittall, 2008). The workplace situation advocated in unitarist perspective has had detrimental impact on the powers of trade unions. For instance in Britain where introductions of several laws implies a decline in the powers of trade unions in industrial relations as their performance is directly related to the membership attracted to join them. Because of continued reliance on Unitarist approach in employment relations, the power of collective bargaining has undergone significant reduction as the reduction in membership also limits revenue from collection of membership fees. The groundwork for legislation of trade unions in Britain was provided by ideological analysis present in the 1981 Green Paper addressing Trade Union Immunities as follows. According to the government authorities, industrial relations was a fundamental cause of weakness in the economy while the strikes promoted by trade unions were seen as inhibiting the country’s ability to compete in global market (Williams, 2014). Before introduction of legal frameworks to limit the activities of trade unions, it was argued that the balance of bargaining power favoured trade unions (Armstrong and Taylor, 2014). Elimination of powerful trade unions under Unitarist perspective has led to the introduction of management initiated reward schemes that fail to recognize the legitimacy of employee grievances. Due to the introduction of additional remuneration criteria, the management feels employees should be satisfied with the workplace conditions through declaration of loyalty and commitment to the organization and its goals. However, such perception of employee needs fails to accept that fact that employees are also motivated by other non-monetary workplace conditions. Introduction of trade unions as representative of workers leads to smooth identification and discussion of the best approach to satisfy employee needs (Bryson, 2001). As Unitarist perspective to employment relations seeks to establish commitment and loyalty towards the organization, conflicts are not perceived as a natural outcome of human interaction. The management perceives conflicts between employers and employees as being dysfunctional and a recipe for development of disloyalty, which curtails organizational quest to achieve set objectives (Curseu, Kenis and Raab, 2009). Employer’s perception of conflict means it is not viewed as indicator of existing inequality within the organization therefore making it difficult for interventions from the government and trade unions to be included as mechanism for establishing harmony in between employers and employees. However, this perception is of conflict is false since a number of literature on workplace conflicts has indicated possibility of emergence of disagreements that seek constructive solutions to organizational challenges. When conflict related to approaches to different organizational challenges develops and are solved amicably, the quality of organizational output also increases as members find a common ground to boost their relations (Hodgkinson and Sadler-Smith, 2003). For instance, (ORourke and Yarbrough, 2008) notes the existence of Type-conflict, which is perpetuated by negative feelings and actions like personal attacks, resentment, and is defensive. Type-C conflict is depersonalized and responds to the merits of certain positions in the task instead of arguments generated by emotions and affective reactions. Therefore, practice of unitarist employment relations implies the management fails to benefit from the task-based conflicts whose resolution would be beneficial to the organization. While the unitarist perspective seems to have negative implications for the employment relations, it is important to note that the perspective has a number of positive outcomes that must also come to the fore. Support for unitarist approach is based on the argument that it has a general focus of integrating employer and employee interests with a view of enhancing the level of employee commitment and loyalty towards the achievement of organisational goals (Guest and Peccei, 2001). To address adequately these interests, unitarist perspective advocates for establishment of stakeholder management that considers employees as an essential component of organisational operations. As part of the stakeholders in the organization, employee wellbeing becomes one of the areas that that the management strives to guarantee for the welfare of the organisation. While the trade unions are not powerful in an organization emphasising unitarist view of workers and employer relations, managers play an important role of ensuring decision making is based on a win-win outcome for both employers and employees. The unitarist perspective to employment relations calls on managers to apply employee management practices that go beyond their management styles to adopt leadership roles when dealing with the workers. However, while this seems possible in theory, application becomes difficult, as the perspective does not provide concrete guidance for how the management can exercise middle ground decision that favours both the employers and employees. Practice of unitarist perspective does provide the human resource department with adequate guidelines on how to pursue unitarism effectively (Storey, 2000). The perspective is supported based on the assumption that employers and employees exercise rational decisions on matters affecting personal and organisational interests of all the members. The existence of power inequalities within the organization means the management will always seek to further their interests ahead of worker’s welfare particularly when sustainable profit margins are under threat (Kessler and Purcell, 2003). Additionally, blue-collar jobs are characterized by the presence of managers who in many cases exert unyielding power over the workers on issues pertaining work conditions. A win-win situation becomes impossible since workers do not act as owners of power but tend to accept and are submissive to decisions made by the management. Pluralist perspectives of employees, employer and the state in employee relations While unitarist approach to employment relations focuses on aligning the interests of employees and employers, pluralist perceive the workplace as being characterised by diverse behaviours, attitudes, and set of beliefs, which must be accounted for during discussions on labour relations. This perception of the workplace environment provides for the development of alternative and opposing sources of leadership within the organisation. Therefore, conflict in the organization is natural as the forces attempt to reach agreements that best address their interests in the organization. Conflicts are not in themselves perceived as negative as they provide an opportunity for mediating competing interests. One of the core institutions practicing in a system supporting pluralist perspective of employment relationship is trade unions with legitimate powers to represent employees. The management supports trade unions as they assist employees practice their decision-making powers (Leat, 2001). In a pluralist perspective of employment relations, the presence of the state is based on the need to protect public interest. The state perceives private business as being motivated by profit making desires, which might be exploitative towards the employees. Therefore, the government through legal frameworks will minimize management power to protect the citizens (Kaufman, 2008). Industry stability for pluralists is an outcome of series of compromise during negotiations between employers and employers. Concessions and negotiations are part of collective bargaining process that leads to discussions and solutions to various workplace conditions to (Bacon and Storey, 2000). The implication of pluralist perspective is that the management and trade unions compete in their search for the best terms under the market conditions for employees. While the pluralist system provides for collective bargaining reflecting conditions that are outside the workplace terms and conditions, the management will seek to avoid confrontation by introducing internal mechanisms for improving workplace conditions (Abbott, 2007). An essential outcome for systems embracing pluralist approach to employment relations is the provision for employee voice. Since the pluralist perspective of employment relations is concerned with power and control based on the extent to which the management can make decisions without constraints within the workplace environment, it is essential that employee voice is analysed. Assessment of employee voice relate to all the mechanisms devised for the employees to contribute directly and indirectly to the decision-making processes within the organization (Boxall and Purcell, 2003). Traditional argument in support of employee inclusion into decision-making processes was based on the perception of industrial citizenship and industrial democracy (Gollan and Wilkinson, 2007). The pressure for representation in decision-making have been exerted by employees and represents the extent to which they feel empowered and possess legitimate claim to articulate concerns over workplace conditions to management. The employees’ voice is channelled through both formal and informal mechanisms that seek to include their views on the overall approach to workplace conditions. There are varied degrees of employee inclusion starting from low-level consultation where the management inclusion of employees is limited to giving prior notice of certain decisions with minimal level of absorption of employee views. A mid-level inclusion of employees’ voices is practiced through workplace environment where employees’ views may motivate managerial re-examination of earlier decision to avert disagreement or escalation of conflict. High-level pluralist workplace situation involves employees who have the capacity to initiate criticism and suggestions for the management to consider revising certain aspects of organisational decisions. However, the management retains its sole decision-making power, which forms the basis against which employee proposals are seriously considered with the outcome highly likely to demonstrate employee influence in decision-making (Wilton, 2010). The inclusion of employee voice in the decision making process provides for the management to adopt multiple avenues that provide important guidance to employee relations policies (Gennard, and Judge, 2002). Inclusion of employee voice is not limited to the practice of trade unions only; the management can encourage a no-union policy as long as there are mechanisms for presentation of workers’ perception about how to improve the workplace environment. While the role of trade unions in pushing for the interests of employees is enhanced in the pluralist perspective of employment relations, there are still limitations to extent to which such forms of power can be exercised. One of the major roles performed by the government under this perspective is rationalization of demands by trade union and the best conditions and terms of services that the management can offer employees considering the industry conditions at the time of negotiation and collective bargaining (Lewis, Thornhill and Saunders 2003). In this case, the state functions as a labour market controller with its functions being evident in the provision of legal and legislative frameworks determining standards for workplace practices such as working hours, health and safety standards and wages for particular levels of employees. When performing these roles, the government considers public interests as it seeks to empower its citizens through emphasis on quality workplace conditions to ensure the employees operate under legally acceptable conditions. While taking care of the public interest is essential role for the government, the interests of the management are also considered for the benefit of economic development. Allowing the management to have a degree of control over the organization and workplace conditions ensures managers introduce policies that respond to economic realities and the need to operate a sustainable profit making organization (Lewis, Thornhill and Saunders 2003). Conclusion Evaluation of the unitarist and pluralist perspectives of employment relations reveals contrasting views about the relationship between employees, employers and the state in addition to how interests held by these groups are addressed. While the pluralist perspective is based on general acceptance that conflict between employers and employees is natural, unitarist perspective of employment relationship is that it is possible to establish a harmonious relationship between the two groups. Harmony under unitarist perspective is based on the argument that the employers can address the interests of both the management and employee for the improvement of the organization. Any conflict within organisational set up supporting unitarist approach is considered as characteristics of disloyalty and lack of commitment to the organization. The role of the state under these perspectives is understood as part of government role to protect public interest and to ensure the economy remains competitive (Williams, 2014). The state in unitarist environment will seek to limit the powers of trade unions as they are seen as destructive to development of the economy while in pluralist perspectives the state will balance these powers through legal frameworks that protect employees and employers from negative outcomes in employment relations. References Abbott, K., 2007. Employment Relations: Integrating Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management. Problems and perspectives in management, 5 (1), 61-71. Armstrong, M., & Taylor, S., 2014. Armstrongs handbook of human resource management practice. Kogan Page Publishers. 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. Bryson, A., 2001. Union effects on managerial and employee perceptions of employee relations in Britain. London School of Economics and Political Science, Centre for Economic Performance, 76(2), 243-268. Boxall, P., & Purcell, J., 2003. Strategy and human resource management. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 57(1), 84. Curseu, P.L., Kenis, P., & Raab, J., 2009. Reciprocated relational preferences and intra-team conflict. Team Performance Management 15, (1/2) 18-34. Gennard, J. and Judge, G., 2002. Employee Relations, 3rd ed. Wimbledon: Institute of Personnel and Development. Gollan, P. J., & Wilkinson, A., 2007. Contemporary developments in information and consultation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(7), 1133-1144. 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. Hodgkinson, G. P., & Sadler-Smith, E. (June 01, 2003). Complex or unitary? A critique and empirical re-assessment of the Allinson-Hayes Cognitive Style Index. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 46(4), 541-548. Leat, M., 2001. Exploring employee relations. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Kaufman, B.E., 2008. Paradigms in industrial relations: original, modern and versions in-between. British Journal of Industrial Relations 46, (2) 314-339. Kessler, I. & Purcell, J., 2003. Individualism and collectivism in industrial relations.’ In P. K.  Edwards (ed.), Industrial relations: theory and practice. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Storey, J., 2000. Human resource management: still marching on or marching out?. In J. Storey, and K. Sisson (eds). The realities of human resource management: managing the employment relationship. Buckingham: Open University Press: 3-32. Whittall, M., 2008. Employee forums in the UK: Friend or foe of trade unions? International journal of action research, 4(3), 225-253. ORourke, J. & Yarbrough, B., 2008. Module 1: Leading Groups and Teams. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning. 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. Wilton, N., 2010. An introduction to human resource management. California: Sage Publications. Williams, S., 2014. Introducing Employee Relations: A critical Approach (3rd ed), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More