Employers and the Management of Labour - Literature review Example

Employers and the Management of Labour Introduction Labour problem is a ical issue that management has had to deal with over the years. Management concern about labour problem relate to the overall quest to achieve high productivity while maintaining costs of operations. Workers are central element within the organization where strategies by management to improve output should target. Focus on the workers is due to their flexibility to respond to changes introduced by management within a short time compared to the fixed assets. This essay will discuss the extent to which management has sought to solve the labour problem using both classical and contemporary approaches to labour relations. The essay first explores the legal, functional and ideological bases for claiming the right to manage. The discussion then highlights both traditional and contemporary labour management techniques, with the constraints limiting the ability of managers to manage. Right to Manage Claims Legal Basis Legal basis of the right to manage is mostly explained based on the understanding of management prerogative, which is a right perceived as intrinsic to the practice of management and can never be subject to collective bargaining. The right to management is usually exclusively reserved for the management as expressed in legal documents such as management clause in bargaining agreement. In such expressions, the management has the right to exercise a range of control including right to hire, fire or promote. Management also undertakes some disciplinary measures that might include suspension or discharging employees who fail to abide by specific organizational rules (Storey, 1983). Further, the management is responsible for tasks such as directing the flow of work performed by employees and creating policies to guide all aspects of organizational operations. Property laws accord managers the right to manage an organization and its workers on the behalf the shareholders. In this regard, the manager is like the owner of the organization based on the powers and privileges granted by the owners of the organization. Therefore, as an employer, the management reserves the legal right to conduct internal affairs of the business organization based on subjective discretion and judgment. This perception of right to manage implies managers enjoy wide latitude of discretion and free reign to in application of important regulatory decision. These decisions relate to important processes in all aspects of employment, which include the prerogative to impose discipline in the process of propagating its own affairs and achieve organizational purpose (Selznick, 1969). Functional Basis Functional support for right to manage relate to the perception that organizations have a hierarchy that all the stakeholders should respected for the organization to archive its objectives. This belief based is on the perception that the management are at the top of this hierarchy based on their functions and technical expertise that places them above the rest of employees in the business organization. The management has, therefore been constituted to perform functions that the rest of the workers would be unable to perform on their own. The work of the management in an organization is to organize the employees in a single unit for the achievement of a common objective whose attainment will be impossible if everyone was to work in isolation. In this case, management plays a coordinating function as it seeks to ensure the performance of every employee constitutes a single element in overall operations of the organization. Small and less complex organizations can function effectively without organization and hierarchy especially when members agree on the performance of each employee. However, a particular level of development in terms of organizational size and membership that makes organization and hierarchy a significant contributor to the success in operations. In this case, the management achieves significance as an organizational component whose function is to eliminate the disadvantages of complexity (Bach, 2005). Ideological Basis Ideological basis of the right to manage stems from Second World War were the practice of management become familiar and legitimate a status symbol. This legitimacy was had the support of social and institutional tradition granting managers the right to recruit, demote, fire, control, and assess the performance of the rest of workforce in the workplace. Exercise of managerial ideology in democratic and pluralist societies has the goal of justifying the autonomy and maintenance of power by business elite (Harris, 1982; Harbison and Myers, 1959). These managerial practices embedded in the language, values and beliefs that are essential and to the best interest of stakeholders’ effort towards sustainable production. Additionally, the managerial practices contribute to profit generation and service provision for the common good of the society. As a system of social organization, the management use ideologies such as capitalism to dictate what is good or bad for the organization especially in economic sense. Therefore, management will seek to promote specific ideologies through formal organizational actions that might include promotion and employee development activities (Fox, 1966). Constant labour problems are an essential indicator of the limitations inherent in these managerial rights. Workers see managerial control as limiting their full participation in the organizational processes since they do not have a voice on management of the organization and on the nature of the managerial ideology that developed. Management control has also contributes to suppressing workers’ chances of enhancing their skills through performance of new tasks (Braverman 1974). Harbison and Myers (1959) perceives management as a system of authority, economic resource and a social class whose function within the organization follows the need for subordination, loyalty and high productivity of workers. Fox (1966) perceives the conflicts been management and workers as being the result of differing ideologies as a basis that determines the attitude of workers and the management towards. This discontent is essentially the reason for the rise of unionized workers who perceive worker organization as an important step in agitating for improvement in the workplace. Additionally, workers have also used the unions to call for management to include them in organizational decision-making processes (Selznick, 1969). Additionally, the assumptions in managers’ right to manage do not take into account the fact that that core elements in every organization is the people. It is essential that the management understand employees’ cultural, social and personal motivations related to their complex actions since management cannot program them, to work in predetermined manner. While some see the right of management as a scientifically proven assumption, it also necessary to point out that the predetermined processes set up for the organization might not result in desired outcomes. When a worker is not satisfied with particular conditions of the workplace environment, it is easy for them to choose not to perform their part in the sequence of organizational operations that result in achieving the predetermined objective. Even when workers do not undertake obvious forms of resistance, they throughout history have practiced passive resistance that slows down organizational operations (Delbridge, 1995; Lambert and Chan, 1999). Traditional Labour Management Techniques Traditional management techniques respond to a gap in formal practice of management and organization. There was a need for a body of knowledge that would respond to the best way of managing and designing organizations for the benefit of all stakeholders. Experts rooting for the development of a more ‘scientific’ and systematic approach is also a contributor to the development of scientific approach to management. Scientific management by Frederick Taylor is one of the approaches that sought legitimization and systematization of management (Harris, 1982). Taylor perceived application of scientific principles to management as being essential for efficient management practices. For effective management of employees, scientific management acknowledges the perception that efficient practice should involve scientific analysis existing of workload. Systematic hiring and training of suitable persons to fill the identified areas of need is the next process after undertaking the analysis. Employee efficiency and reduction of costs of production were the cornerstone of Taylor’s principles that targeted generation of maximum profits and wage earning capabilities (Taylor, 1912; Taylor, 1903). For Taylor, low production was because of organizations paying their employees below the level of their output, unused potential, inefficiency and wastefulness of workers and working processes. The low productivity is a result of of workers’ perception that high productivity will threaten their employment positions as the management requires fewer workers to accomplish similar tasks. Additionally, Taylor argued that employees underperformed because there were no incentives to motivate them to go beyond their regular levels of production. In this case, employees received similar rates for both high and low level of productivity. Employees also adopted methods that were less than optimal method for completing a particular task. Thirdly, workers wasted much of their time using less-than-optimal methods for completing a work instead of the best possible way (Taylor, 1912; Taylor, 1903). Taylor’s analysis of the workplace environment led to the development of new approaches to replace the unsystematic decision-making processes that lacked scientific evidence. Taylors’ recommendation of how to end the inefficiency had four general propositions that: firstly, replacing the traditional general guidelines for how to complete a particular task with a specific scientifically tested procedure for a particular task. Secondly, the management was to apply the scientific principles in the processes of recruiting selecting, training, and developing every worker based on the requirements their particular job. Lastly, Managers should introduce apt policies for the division of labour and responsibility for the management and employees (Taylor, 1912; Taylor, 1903). In this case, managers were responsible for planning of organizational operations with workers completing designed tasks (Harris, 1982). Apart from the scientific principles introduced by Taylor, there were further attempts to improve productivity of the workers including the introduction of human relations theory first introduced in Hawthorne studies. The theory identifies relationship between the management and workers as being essential for high productivity in an organization. Employees require individual and group level motivation in addition to leadership by management for them to increase their output in the organization. Human relation theory argues that the worker seeks employment to satisfy social needs apart from the monetary satisfaction (Rose, 1975; Hollway, 1991). The discussion main components of scientific management and human relations approaches to solving labour problems indicate a new perception of processes required to solve the problem. As discussed above scientific management principle stresses organizational structure and systems as essential in ensuring efficiency of the workers. Therefore, scientific management focuses on the needs of the organization with the workers chosen according specific organizational criteria (Rose, 1975). However, proponents of human relations perceive high productivity as having a direct relationship with the human factors in the organization. The theory is therefore oriented towards making organizational systems to align with the social needs of the workers. This approach is necessary in satisfying employee needs as they have positive outcome on their level of productivity (Rose, 1975; Hollway, 1991). Even with the noted difference, scientific management and human relations approaches have a common perception in terms of their unitary view to the role of workers and management. Both advocates for distinct roles of the worker and organizational management with their main tenets being workers should accept management authority. The two approaches spell distinct roles with the management formulating organizational policies while workers implement the provided plans of how the organization should achieve its objectives. In this sense, the approaches rely on workers’ acceptance of leadership roles played by management based on its technical expertise that enables the running of organizational operations. They also address similar challenges especially with relation to improved labour productivity and loyalty to management authority as being critical in solving labour problem (Fox, 1966). Contemporary labour management techniques Over the years, there have been significant changes in the practice of industrial relations as managers and owners of business organizations seek adopt updated practice such as Human Resource Management (HRM) (Jensen, 2011; Geary 2003). The contemporary labour management has adopted a number of strategies advocated by both the scientific management and human relations approaches. However, there have been new techniques introduced to enhance workers’ productivity. Contemporary human resources management perceives human resources as possessing core competencies necessary for successful running of the organization. HRM practices respond to personal and professional need of the employee through training and development. This approach ensures the employee continues to learn of new and improved approaches for completing their tasks (Bach and Edwards, 2013). This approach has led to the development of techniques such as Just- In - Time (JIT), Total Quality Management (TQM), Lean, team working, which enhance employee participation. In application of JIT, management provides ground for improved employee productivity by introducing hiring policies based on the assessment of future needs to be able to strategize a head of the target and deliver on time. Organizations are still concerned with the cost of production with lean organizational principles guiding HR practices aimed to achieve higher output with the application of minimal resources (Edwards, 2009; Delbridge, 1995). Collective responsibility, commitment and reward enhance the workers’ contribution to overall performance of the organization. Based on techniques advocated in the contemporary labour management, workers receive greater concessions through practices such as sharing organizational information. Areas of information sharing between management and employees include organizational profits, productivity levels, costs, quality and capital spending plans (Bach and Edwards, 2013). In general, contemporarily labour relations focuses on empowerment of employees, building of trust between the management and workers and creating a system of mutual dependence. These approaches improved the overall performance of teams as they assume greater responsibility for quality of their output. Further, workers contribute more towards maintenance of the system, tweaking of the production schedule to reduce wastage and application of best approaches for existing resources to achieve organizational goals (Bach and Edwards, 2013; Scarborough and Kinnie, 2003). As seen from these techniques, delegation is an essential aspect of contemporary management techniques especially with the rise of concepts such as high performance teams. These teams receive increased autonomy on how to perform their duties with the management making value judgement based on quality of output considering the resources used to complete particular tasks. The consequence of these approaches has been increased accountability on the part of employees as they seek to justify the increased autonomy granted to them as individuals and when working in teams. The result of the application of modern management techniques combined with globalization is that their level of control and regulation has continued to diminish. In the contemporary world, regulation does not follow collective and institutionally based approach resulting in industrial relations being disorganised, deregulated and deinstitutionalised (Jensen, 2011; Charlwood, 2007). Constraints on management decision-making The discussion of classical approaches in the labour management and the contemporary techniques advocated by HRM, indicate management deals with a number of constraints when looking for the best approach in the improvement of production capacity the firm. The approaches have been criticised for being normative in nature especially since the principles advocated focus on what proponents note as the most effective means of achieving high organizational productivity. However, these interventions to labour problems might not work in some specific areas, for instance, organizations advocating innovate approaches requiring going out of the prescribed template. Structural factors also constrain the right to manage due to the factor existing outside the domain of managers’ decision-making and capabilities. One such factor is the condition provided by the overall sector or industry (Colling and Terry, 2010). Managerial decision-making is constrained by circumstances in existing in a particular industry where for instance improvement of the level of production is limited to the level of existing resources and competition offered by other firms in the industry. Existing technology also constrains the management, as employees will only be required to produce to a level that supported by existing technologies. This is more relevant today where introduction of technology has led to compressed time in getting high-quality output from the employees. Complexity of management task also constrains management decision making as managers depend on the creativity, initiatives and competence of teams and individuals to achieve organizational success (Bach, 2005). Given that management run an organization on behalf of the owners, the ultimate decision-making power lies with the owners. Those who own the factors of production determine the approaches for running the organization; therefore, managers have to conform to the visions of the owners. Governments also provide legislation on how organizations should relate to workers, which ultimately influence the practices affecting workers designed by the management. While the management has the task of developing plans for management of the business, the execution power is with the workers in their individual capacity and as a collective. The workers, therefore, can decide to sabotage managerial decisions through active or passive reactions that might have a negative implication on targets designed by the managerial. Reaction from the workers explains why management is willing to introduce policies derived through collective bargaining with employees or their representatives (Edwards, 2009; Bach and Edwards, 2013). Conclusion Managers have over the years used legal, functional and ideological bases in claiming right to manage. These bases reflect efforts to maintain authority over the workers by ensuring their loyalty and conformity to predetermined workplace policies. These claims are a result of traditional management techniques such as scientific management and human relations approach. However, these approaches have their limitations as they promote unitary view of the management-worker relationship, which seeks to delineate strict responsibilities of each. The essay has shown how the traditional approaches have failed to solve labour problems, as they do not give a chance for the management and workers to cooperate in designing effective mechanisms to improve productivity. Contemporary techniques to the labour management have contributed to an improved relationship between workers and the management as they provide for greater collaboration between the workers and management. The essay has also highlighted the factors that limit management decision-making as they fail to control aspects of the industry and workplace that are outside their control. In conclusion, solving labour problem requires coloration of both the management and workers for the interest of both groups to reflect in organizational policies. References Bach, S. (ed.), 2005. Managing human resources: personnel management in transition, 4th edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Bach, S. and Edwards, M. R. (eds.), 2013. Managing human resources: human resource management in transition, 5th edition. Chichester: Wiley. Braverman, H., 1974. Labour and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York: Monthly Review Press. Charlwood, A., 2007. The de-collectivisation of pay setting in Britain 1990-98: Incidence, determinants and impact”. Industrial Relations Journal 38(1): 33-50. Colling, T., & Terry, M. (Eds.), 2010. Industrial relations: theory and practice. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Delbridge, R., 1995. Surviving JIT: Control and Resistance in a Japanese Transplant. Journal of Management Studies, 32(6), 803–817. Edwards, P. (Ed.), 2009. Industrial relations: theory and practice. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Fox, A., 1966. Managerial Ideology and Labour Relations. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 4(3), 366–369. Geary, J., 2003. New forms of work organization: still limited, still controlled, but still welcome?. In Edwards, P. (ed.), 2003. Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Harbison, F. and Myers, C., 1959. Management in the industrial world. New York: McGraw-Hill. Harris, H., 1982. The right to manage. Madison: Wisconsin University Press. Hollway, W., 1991. Work psychology and organizational behaviour. London: Sage. Jensen, C. S., 2011. Between industrial and employment relations-the practical and academic implications of changing labour markets. Arbetsmarknad & Arbetsliv, 17(3), 53-65. Lambert, R. and Chan, A., 1999. Global dance: factory regimes, Asian labour standards and corporate restructuring. In Waddington, J. (ed.). Globalization and patterns of labour resistance. London: Mansell. Rose, M., 1975. Industrial Behaviour, 1st ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Scarborough, H. and Kinnie, N., 2003. Barriers to the development of teamworking in UK firms. Industrial Relations Journal, 34(2), 135–149. Selznick, P., 1969. Law, society, and industrial justice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Storey, J., 1983. Managerial prerogative and the question of control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Taylor, F., 1903. Shop Management, in Taylor, F., 1911. Scientific Management. New York: Harper. Taylor, F., 1912. Scientific Management. In D. S. Pugh (ed.), 1997. Organization Theory: Selected Readings, 4th edition. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Read More