To What Extent Is the Employment Relationship Based on the Expression of Conflicting Interests - Coursework Example

Topic To what extent is the employment relationship based on the expression of conflicting interests? Table of Contents Content Page # Introduction 1 Employment Relationship: Manifestations and resolutions of conflicting interests 1 Personal viewpoint 5 Conclusion 5 References 7 Introduction The employment relationship is consisted of both cooperation and conflict between employee and employer. The incentive for cooperation is grounded on the collective contribution of capital and labour essential for the production of goods and services with an aim of obtaining economic progress, while the incentive for conflict stems from the differences between labour and management over their perspective roles and responsibilities. The overt manifestations of employment relationship conflict such as low productivity, high turnover and high absenteeism are common. The covert manifestations of employment relationship conflict by their analysis of informal work groups, decision-making networks can be highlighted as well. The employment relationship conflicts are largely provided by poor management, poorly designed jobs and the presence of differences over the distribution of economic benefits and returns. In the following parts of this paper, different manifestations of conflicting interests between employer and employee are accounted for including the ways to reduce the level of conflict between them. Subsequent to that, personal viewpoint is included with a recent example of interest conflict between employee and employer before adding the conclusion part. Employment relationship: Manifestations and resolutions of conflicting interests The employment relationship comprises of both cooperation and conflict between employer and employee. The incentive for cooperation is based on the combined contribution of labour and capital that is essential for the production of goods and services in order to secure economic progress, whilst the incentive for conflict is grounded on the differences between management and labour over their perspective responsibilities and roles in the production of the goods and services and also in the distribution of the economic returns obtained there from (Lewin 2001). A number of Human Resource (HR) scholars and practitioners have put their attention on numerous overt manifestations of employment relationship conflict such as job satisfaction and low productivity, high turnover and high absenteeism. Moreover, HR specialists have also highlighted the covert employment relationship conflict through their analysis of informal work groups (among management personnel and employees), decision-making networks and organizational culture. The HR specialists believe that the employment relationship conflict stems from poor management and can be diminished by the improved management (Lewin 2001). In this regard, Taylor (1911) contended that management-worker conflict was largely contributed by poorly designed jobs and the presence of differences over the distribution of economic returns from a relatively low level of productive outcome. Taylor (1911) further argued that by applying industrial engineering principles to the work re-design (including managerial work); the level of productivity would be enhanced considerably and would lead to much bigger economic returns to the management capital and labour. But, it was also the case that workers were increasingly chaffed under the framework of work system required them staunchly to follow the commands and orders of the supervisors (foremen) and that emboldened management to tighten (or threaten to tighten) standard work times at its own will. Furthermore, this work system considered workers as un-dimensional. In order to overcome this narrow concept of the worker and to deal with growing worker dissatisfaction with the framework of scientific management, the pioneers of the human relations movement directed employers’ attention towards workers’ social needs and to the significance of the informal work group (Roethlisberger & Dickson 1939). The notion that worker needs should be properly and systematically assessed in order to decrease conflict, improve management, and shape HR programs and practices took strong hold among employers particularly in the second half of the 20th century. For example, in 1955, IBM directed an employee opinion survey that was annually administered to rotating samples of the company’s employees and this process still continues in a number of multi-national firms globally. In such companies, senior management typically required lower and middle management to ‘feedback’ major findings from the surveys to employees, appropriately manage the employee queries about intended management actions grounded on survey findings, and assist senior management with reports about actions taken in conjunction with their own annual performance appraisals. In addition, some firms implemented specific employee satisfaction or morale score as new operating HR objectives. In essence, the surveys of employee opinion worked as early warning systems to enhance management and diminish potential employer-employee conflict (Lewin 2001). An alignment of goals among employers and employees can be used to reduce conflict in the employment relationship. This alignment of goals can be entertained through new work practices. Quality circle was one such practice widely adopted by the US manufacturing firms in the 1970s and 1980s. Under this practice, groups of six to eight workers met for a particular time period at the start of each work shift to diagnose and determine solutions to production problems and subsequently, these solutions were forwarded to management, which took into account all the solutions and decided which ones to adopt and how to enforce. In 1973, a US Department of Health, Education and Welfare-sponsored study highlighted that the typical US worker was considerably separated from work and this could lead to overt industrial conflict and the possibility of even workplace disorder and violence (O’Toole 1973). This situation convinced some HR specialists to advocate programs improving the quality of work life (QWL) (O’Toole 1974) by steps such as job rotation and job enrichment; and a considerable number of employers understood the seriousness of the issue and adopted such programs (Davis & Cherns 1975). However, like QWL programs, the use of quality circles eventually collapsed and precipitously declined. Lawler & Mohrman (1987) stated that this decline was largely contributed by the absence of direct payments or the provision of other rewards to workers who participated in such programs. The quality circle experience in the US represents a significant endeavour by management to forge a unity of interests with the interests of employees (Lewin 2001). The employee suggestion system has been a significant part in the HR history till this point of time. In the 1930s, the Scanlon Plan, also known as the gain-sharing plan, was developed, introduced and implemented in the US steel industry (Moore & Ross 1978), and till this time, a number of manifestations of gain-sharing plans have been enforced by employers. This plan is used to reduce costs and the savings are shared between the owner of the capital and all employee including managerial employees. A significant part of gain-sharing plans is provided by employees in the shape of suggestions about ways to diminish costs. Similar to quality circles, the gain-sharing plans require management to decide which employee suggestions will be entertained, but unlike quality circles, there is a direct payment provision to employees based on the achievement of cost savings. Perhaps because of this incentive in the gain-sharing plans, unlike quality circles and QWL programs, the gain-sharing plans are not absent from the US employment scene. And, employee suggestion systems in general and gain-sharing plans in particular substantiate the HR premise that a unity of interests can be achieved among employees and management along with consequent reductions in employer-employee conflict. Kruse & Blasi (1997) also opined that the same conclusion can be attached with the employer use of stock ownership, profit-sharing, and stock option plans, all of which have become substantial part in reducing interest conflict among employers and employees. Personal viewpoint Union leader threatens public sector strikes to disrupt the event of London Olympics (Sparrow and Milmo 2012). Len McCluskey, who is the General Secretary of Unite, said that our very way of life is being attacked; he further said that by then this crazy health and social care bill may have been passed, so we are looking at the privatization of our National Health Service and he believes that the unions have got every right to be out protesting (Sparrow and Milmo 2012). This situation clearly represents the presence of conflicting interests between employees, represented by the Unions and the employer, the UK government. The UK government is going to pass a bill cutting public sector pensions and the Unions do not agree with this move and have decided to go against it. Undoubtedly, conflicting interests are a part of employment relationships in today’s complex and uncertain times. And there is no way to avoid them. However, the ultimate resolution is always provided by negotiations between the parties in which both parties are required to leave their conflicting position and move ahead in order reduce the intensity of conflicting interests and find a workable and durable resolution. Conclusion The conflicting interests have become inbuilt part of today’s employment relationships. There are a number of factors contributing conflicts in the employment relationships such as poor management, poorly designed jobs and job descriptions along with the presence of differences over the distribution of economic returns and benefits. And, these causes provide grounds for low productivity, high absenteeism and high labour turnover. And, if the conflicting interests are of strategic nature hitting everyone in an organization, massive strikes by unions may represent the presence of interest conflict in employment relationship. And, the peaceful and durable resolution of interest conflict can only be achieved through negotiations. References Davis LE, & Cherns AB (eds) 1975, The quality of working life vols. ½, Free Press, New York Kruse, DL, & Blasi, J R1997, Employee ownership, employee attitudes, and firm performance, In: D. Lewin, DJB, Mitchell, & M A, Zaidi (Eds), The human resource management handbook, Part I, pp. 113–151, JAI Press, Greenwich Lawler, E E III, & Mohrman, S1987, ‘Quality circles: after the honeymoon’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol.15, p.42–54. Lewin, D2001, ‘IR and HR perspectives on workplace conflict: What can each learn from the other?’ Human Resource Management Review, Vol.11, pp.453-485 Moore, B, & Ross, T1978, The Scanlon way to improved productivity, Wiley, New York O’Toole J1973, Work in America. Report of a special task force to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, MIT Press, Cambridge O’Toole J (ed.) 1974, Work and the quality of life, MIT Press, Cambridge Roethlisberger, FJ, & Dickson, W J1939, Management and the worker, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Sparrow, A & Milmo, D 2012, Union leader threatens public sector strikes to disrupt London Olympics, The Guardian, 28 February Viewed 29 February, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/28/olympics-london-union-strike-threat Taylor, FW1911, The principles of scientific management, Harper and Brothers, New York Read More