The Term Management Style in Understanding the Dynamics in the Employee Relations - Essay Example

What do you understand by the term management style in employee relations? How useful is the term in understanding the dynamics in the employee relations? Student’s Name Course Tutor Date Introduction What do you understand by the term management style in employee relations? How useful is the term in understanding the dynamics in the employee relations? Management styles can be defined as the theories and concepts that exert influence on an organization’s working environment (Ackers, Wilkinson 2003, pp. 100). Management styles constitute the characteristic ways through which decisions are made and senior people in organizations relate with subordinates. The management style idea was developed more by Warren Schmidt and Robert Tannenbaum who said that leadership styles depend on prevailing circumstance. Leaders therefore are expected to use various management styles which should be deployed as appropriate. Management follows three different styles which are paternalistic, autocratic and democratic. This essay seeks to examine the meaning of management style in employee relations and its development which goes along unitarism and pluralism. It also looks at the usefulness of the term in understanding the dynamics of employee relations. Management styles In autocratic management managers enjoy making every important decision as they supervise and control workers closely. The leader has little or no trust at all in workers and he gives the orders that the workers need to obey. This approach draws from Taylor’s views on employee motivation and relates to “theory X view of workers” by McGregor. This style of management has limitations as shown by motivational theorists like Herzberg and Mayo although in certain situations it can also be effective. An example is when quick decisions must be made in times of crises and when a huge number of low skilled employees are being controlled (Ackers, Wilkinson 2003, pp. 210). Paternalistic management style requires that the views and social needs of the workers are given more attention. Managers show interest in the happiness of workers and they act the father figure. They consult the workers on various issues and get to listen to their opinions and feedback. The actual decision is however made by the manager in the workers’ interests. The style links with the human relation view of Mayo on motivation as well as the social needs of Maslow (Mullins 2005, pp. 56). Another style of management is the democratic one. This one puts trust on the workers and gives them encouragement to make decisions. They delegate the authority for this to them and takes their advice in. This thrives where there is good back and forth communication and involves discussion groups that are democratic and can offer useful ideas and suggestions. Managers should be wiling to encourage subordinates to develop leadership skills. The real democratic system takes place takes place when decisions are made basing on the majority opinion of all employees. Nevertheless it is never feasible for this in many of the decisions that businesses take. One criticism directed to this style is that it takes long for a decision to be made Blyton, Bacon, Fiorito, Heery (2008, pp. 32) Development of management styles In the development of management styles every manager can choose what style suits his organization best and develop it. The development of leadership styles can be viewed through two perspectives which are unitarism and pluralism (Mullins 2005, pp. 56). The pluralist approach emphasizes on the decentralized and dynamic processes and outcomes of employee relations but there exists scope and stability for balances of power through means such as legislation, bargaining, custom and practice. It focuses on the different interests that exist the reason for their existence and if these interests leave behind any scope for beneficial solutions mutually. The issue of conflict is looked at as being legitimate and inevitable although it can be controlled and tampered to a certain degree via appropriate procedures and structures. Compromise, negotiations and concessions prominently appear in the pluralist mind with little emphasis on fiat decisions Mullins (2005, pp. 56). The pluralist theory is of the belief that there are diverse sets of beliefs, behaviors, attitudes and values at the workplace. Secondly it also believes that there are attachment and leadership sources within organizations that are opposing to each other (Kelly 1998, pp. 116).Thirdly conflicts within the organization cannot be avoided since they occur because of competing interests. Conflicts may be beneficial if they are identified and placed under control with institutional responses. The management has a role of mediating among the interests that are competing. The pluralist view also holds that Trade unions legitimately represent employees and they are seen in a positive way since they assist employees in emphasizing their power for decision making. The state promotes the interests of the public and the stability of employment relations can be achieved through negotiations and concessions between employers and managers via the collective bargaining process (Kelly 1998, pp. 130). Problems of the pluralist perspective Salamon (2000, pp. 24) notes that the pluralist theory has a weakness because it dwells on procedures and rules and disregards the process which adds its contribution to conflict resolution. For example through Industrial Relations there can be laws that are made to impose on people certain methods of resolving conflicts at the workplace. These rules though, are not able to adapt to the different and emerging conditions at the workplace. To add to this, the pluralist perspective cannot realize that the state represents commercial interests as well and not just public interests alone. The pluralist perspective focuses much on the interests of workers which may leads to inefficiencies in the processes of collective bargaining (Kaufman 2004, pp. 41).  Unitarist perspectives Employee relations have two major frames of reference which are the unitarist and pluralist frameworks. The unitarist perspective has several elements in it. The reasons for this are that in the first place there is just one source of authority within the organization. The management is this source since oppositionary leaders do not exist. The role of the leaders of an organization is the promotion of commitment and loyalty among the workers. Again, organizations are viewed as having teams that work together for the achievement of mutual goals and there exist no conflicts of interest between the employees and managers. In the unitarist perspective it is believed that employees and employees can merge their forces to attain common objectives, values and interests. According to Kelly (1998, pp. 130), the management also has to exemplify some strong leadership in order to attain the objectives of the organization. The unitarist perspective views trade unions as illegal intrusions in to the objectives of the management. Trade unions do not come out as being necessary for the harmonious management of conflicts. Conflicts within the organization are seen in a negative perspective because they are dysfunctional and they cause disloyalty which then can impair the organization’s well being. From this perspective the state is seen as being autonomous and it shapes the industrial relation systems (Salamon 2000, pp. 55). Problems in the unitarist perspective Blyton, Bacon, Fiorito, Heery, Edmund (2008, pp. 65) observe that the theory lacks realization and that there exist inequalities in power between employees and employers which eventually bring about various types of conflicts. Managers tend to exert a greater amount of power over workers in the determination of conditions of work more so in blue collar jobs and workers instead of acting as if they also own power they choose to adopt management decisions and submit to its power. Conflict is also treated in a negative way and it is not viewed as a force that can reflect inequalities and also as an opportunity to regain harmony at work. Even though within an organization there may be various types of conflicts, it is believed by some authors that certain types of conflicts can be good for the development of the organization. For example conflict exists in two kinds thus the A-conflict which is not useful to the effectiveness of the team and the other type that does not benefit the team also called C-conflict (Kelly 1998, pp. 89). Task conflict can arise when the members of the team have differences on mode of dividing and defining the tasks in the group like in major processes and areas of decision. Studies have shown that conflicts on tasks can improve positive outcomes for an organization. Trust within the group is known to affect the relationship between relationship conflict and tasked related conflict. Therefore in demonizing conflicts, unitarism delimits the way task conflicts can be used in enhancing performance (Salamon 2000, pp. 44). To add to this it is not clear how the sentiments of individual workers can be integrated adequately into the objectives of the organization since the unitary perspective appears very normative and does not have a description of the identification and sharing of common interests across organizations. For example it fails to give guidelines for human resources for it to pursue unitrism in an effective way. The unitary perspective makes the assumption that the members are reasonable enough to arrive at solid decisions on the combination of organizational and personal interests (Blyton, Bacon, Fiorito, Heery, Edmund 2008, pp. 65).  Purcell in his typologies of employee relations says that management can be done in two major styles which are collectivism and individualism. Individualism is focused on the sentiments and feelings of every employee and it strengthens the capacity of the employees in the work place. Collectivism according to Purcell is the “extent to which the organization recognizes the right of employees to have a say in aspects of management decision making that concern them.” Circumstance change every day and these change presents employees with situations and conditions that need a lot of resilience to handle. Resilience at the place of work can be defined as the ability to adapt to circumstances that are continually changing even in times when these circumstances are disruptive and discouraging (Ackers, Wilkinson, 2003, pp. 110). Resilience enables personal development where the skills and knowledge needed to make a motivated and visible contribution to an organization are obtained. Employee resilience can be explained through the typology of individualism which focuses on strengthening employee capacity at the place of work. When their capacity is strengthened the employees are enabled to become stronger, more empowered and with the ability to develop resilience. Resilience is important since it works hand in hand in the development of the capacity of the employees so that they can overcome tough times that come with the constant changes that are continuously taking place in the place of work. The success of the management of an organization depends on the resilience of its employees. Collective resilience of all the employees gives the organization and the management the power to succeed (Blyton, Bacon, Fiorito, Heery, Edmund 2008, pp. 86).  The static nature of affairs in organizations creates a situation where both the collectivism and individualism approaches do not fit. In such scenarios employers are expected to devise and improvise proper styles and methods of leadership that can fit the prevailing conditions in their specific organizations (Kaufman 2004, pp. 76).  The change that takes place in work environments and all the dynamics of work present more challenges in leadership and management as well. Management should adopt a style that is coherent because of the rapid existence of change in the work place. Lack of coherence in employee relations results in improper management. Managing people must be done in a coherent manner so that all the needs of the organization are harmoniously taken care of. Coherence in management can be illustrated through the typology of collectivism as outlined by Purcell (Salamon 2000, pp. 31).To be able to manage people well together with all the dynamics that take place in an organization, collectivism ensures that the rights of the people are recognized so that they are given a say in management aspects of management and decision making that they are concerned with. When this is done their concerns are properly addressed including the challenges that come about with changing conditions and circumstances in their places of work. Collectivism when handled well as a management typology creates a solution for lack of coherence. Harmonious development of solutions to the problems of the employees is better done if these same employees are involved in the process. The process is more fruitful and satisfying when the opinions and views of each of the people concerned are taken on board. According to Purcell this is guaranteed in the typology of collectivism (Kelly 1998, pp. 45).  Conclusion In conclusion this essay has elaborated on the meaning of management styles and its importance in employee relations. Focus has also been directed on the typologies developed by Purcell and their contribution to the relations between employers and employees. Different management styles exist and the manager is free to choose which one is appropriate. The most common are autocratic, paternalistic and democratic. All the three can comfortable fall into the two typologies of employee relations. The choice of a management style should be done with the aim of nurturing resilience and cohesive management in the organization. The choice of a management style determines the course that relations between employers and employees will take and the eventual success of the manager in the process of management. Bibliography Ackers, P. Wilkinson, A. (2003). Understanding Work and Employment: Industrial Relations in Transition. Oxford University Press. Blyton, Bacon, Fiorito, Heery, Edmund (2008). Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations. Sage. Salamon, M. (2000). Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice. Prentice Hall. Kaufman, B. E. (2004). The Global Evolution of Industrial Relations: Events, Ideas, and the IIRA. International Labour Office. Kelly, J. (1998). Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilization, Collectivism and Long Waves. Routledge. Mullins, L. J (2005). Management and Organisational Behaviour. FT Prentice Hall. Read More