Understanding Management of Employee Relations - Assignment Example

UNDERSTANDING MANAGEMENT and Understanding Management Question Management of employee relations is a that has for a long time undergone series of paradigm shifts. This is because it directly affects the commitment of employees to performing their expected duties and consequently determining the level of production. Therefore, any effort made by the management to maximize the harnessing of employees productivity and creativity power has to be well calculated. Whichever the approach taken by the organization, it should target fostering commitment, increased innovation, creativity, improved customer service, skills development and motivation among employees. The diversity in the employment sector elicits the possibility of conflicts of interest between the employees and the employers which is likely to affect the entire production process and the general output. There are different models that are used by management in solving these conflicts depending on the nature of the existing conflict. These are; the pluralist, unitarist and the radicalist approach (Smith, Farmer, & Yellowley, 2012). The pluralist perceives the organizational composition as being made of several divergent sub-groups in which conflicts of interests are bound to occur. The management would therefore employ persuasion and coordination in conflict resolution instead of enforcement and control. The unitarist approach views the management and the employees as working together towards achieving the goals of the organization. This therefore calls for an aspect of a win situation in conflict resolution. The radicalist perspective however, the decision making is solely based on the employers who set rules and regulations. For this reason, the methods and approaches taken by LIPC Integration Plc. Management in solving the existing conflicts will help in delivery of the organizations set goals and objectives through creation of a balance in individual interests, employers and the society as a whole. In the given scenarios, there are similarities and differences that have been caused by the new policy that bases employee salaries on performance. For instance, in the design department, basing their pay on the level and quality of production does not seem to be a leveled ground. This is because the creativity and talent required for their work are their intellectual properties and not organizational property that would enable them increase the level of production by simply increasing input. The organization takes a radicalistic perspective which does not attain the required consensus. In this case, the employers’ interest is taken care of since the production rate would definitely increase at a subsidized rate and workers will have to work harder to earn more wages. With time, this affects the rates of production since the workers loose motivation and in the long run, the management seeks to attain a win-win situation between the employers and employees through a unitarist approach by having the existing staff hired as consultants rather than full time workforce (Smith, Farmer, & Yellowley, 2012). This is a fair deal for both sides since it provides a level playing ground for both management and the workforce by reducing the burden for the design department. In the second scenario, the fabrication department welcomed the policy changes since they are likely to earn a higher pay through this motivation. The longer the working hours, the higher the pay. In this case, the pluralistic approach has been employed because of the perceived similarity of interest that provides natural motivation thereby increasing production rates for both sides. The achieved common interests of individuals maximize production and performance delivery. The training reward to be given as a result of excellent performance will also benefit both the management and the employees. This is because, improved skills would mean more qualitative and quantitative improvement that will increase the wages earned by the workers and consequently, attaining product improvement for the organization. For the assembly department, the performance dependent reward system is not such good news to them. This is because of the existing differences in interests between the management and the employees. With this system, the management will enjoy the labor at a cheaper cost since the possibilities of the workers improving their rates of production are tied because of the nature of their work. The management chooses to defend their take by employing the radicalistic approach, employing threats to ensure the employees have no say on the working conditions. Even though this approach exhibits the difference in power relation, lack of employee satisfaction automatically waters down the rates of production (Capes, 2013). The method is likely to cause a reduction in productivity because the workers lack motivation to perform their expected duties. The differences in interests between employees and employers are the driving force behind the fall in production with employees simply complying just to avoid losing their jobs but not working to achieve the set goals and objectives of the organization. Question 2 For the fabrication department, I greatly commend the performance based payment system as a tool for production rate improvement. This is because; the Unitarian approach employed will evidently work for the good of both employees and employers. Employees will be willing to work overtime to earn more provided the required resources are available thereby aiding on achievement of the organization goals and objectives due to the existing commonality of interests. The integration of interests of both employers and employees ensures commitment and loyalty of employees, key elements in improving the levels of industrial performance (Smith, Farmer, & Yellowley, 2012). In solving the created conflict in the design department, I recommend that instead of employing the radicalistic approach that robes the workers of their intellectual property rights, the organization should listen to their side and reach out for the Unitarian and pluralistic approaches that recognize the roles played by both parties in the production process. This would greatly motivate the workforce causing them to be more creative and innovative in performing their duties. This would therefore be an alternative route to achieving the same objective that ensures satisfaction of both the employees and employers united by purpose. This shift of focus from replacing the workers to motivating them would be beneficial since it will take time for the organization to start developing new employees with new skills to the current level of employees. In the assembly department, I recommend that if the management intends to either retain the current level of production or have improvement, then employee satisfaction is key. Because of the monotony associated with the nature of their work, attaining consensus in flexibility of working hours would increase production since the workers would have constantly renewed energy to work even harder for increased pay. Consequently, the organization will have increased quality and quantity in production thereby speeding up the production process. Here, the Unitarian and pluralistic approaches applied will best suit both the employees and employers as opposed to the radicalist approach that will push the workers to work without motivation (Capes, 2013). Human beings work best when they do what they are naturally motivated to do than what they are pushed to. The available alternatives for the management of relocating the duties to a more cost effective area will also have diverse effects on the level of production. Integration of interests as an amicable way of conflict resolution can be achieved through two main methods; unitarism and pluralism. Question 3 Unitarism explicitly intends to integrate employee and employer interests in order to promote commitment and loyalty among employees. This views the employees as important stakeholders of the involved organization laying emphasis on caring for their welfare in enhancing the organizational welfare. This approach ensures realigning of the interests of each party by assuming rationality among all stakeholders. In this case, performance will be self driven without coercion from the management team. The collective conflict resolving methods ensures that every idea is synchronized and incorporated in the process. In the given instances, the assembly department and the design departments will perform to their maximum if their role is recognized as special and integral part of the process with specific contributions without which the production process will be incomplete. This will ensure that in any attempt to make policy changes, the organization will consider their well being and the possible repercussions of any intended change on their output. Pluralism views conflicts of interest as common and sees the possibility of solving conflicts through coordination and persuasion that can be achieved through negotiation ensuring that the interests of both parties are taken into consideration. In this case, the interests of one party does not necessarily lead to dissatisfaction of the other as the achieved integration brings the two parties to merge their goals and objectives thereby redefining their goals to be in line with those of the organization (Capes, 2013). In this case, the conflicts are not perceived as negative but as opportunities that when carefully and collectively negotiated can lead to great positive impacts on the organization. Application of this method in solving conflicts in the given scenarios will ensure that just like the fabrication department, the assembly and the design department staff will also be given opportunities to voice out their concerns in relation to the proposed changes before implementation and a level playing ground be reached. Levels that satisfy both parties ensure increased earning for employees and increased production for the organization. References Capes, M., 2013, Communication or conflict: conferences: their nature, dynamics, and planning. Routledge, London. Smith, P., Farmer, M. & Yellowley, W., 2012, Organisational Behaviour, Abingdon, Hodder Education, ISBN 978-1-4441-3533-6. Read More