Employment relationship - Assignment Example

? Employment Relationship Table of Contents Introduction 3 Unitary perspective 4 Pluralist perspective 6 Critical argument- The ideologies which underpin managerial perspectives 8 Reference 15 Introduction Industrial relations are considered to be a multi-disciplinary field that studies the various facets of employment relationships. The predominance of non industrial employment relations has made the term employment relations more meaning and importance. The examination of various employment situations and conditions and also the ones which does not come with a unionized workforce is studied under the field of employment relations. The three main faces comprising employment relations are science building, ethics and problem solving. In the face science building, employment relations are considered to be social science which understands the various employment relationships and institutions through rigorous and high quality research. In the face of ethics, industrial relations are a reflection of very strong normative principles on employment relationships and workers. This is especially with regards to the treatment of workers as a mere commodity in favor of considering them as human beings having human rights in democratic communities. ‘Human relations’ is a term which refers to the entire field of relationships prevailing out of the collaboration between men and women in their recruitment process in the modern industry. It is considered to be that particular part of management which is directly related to the management of organizations and enterprises including skilled workmen, machine operators and managers. It not only deals with the relationship existing between employers and the state but also workers organizations and the relationships existing between occupational organizations. Most importantly, the problem solving aspect of industrial or employment relations seek to create and design such institutions and policies which help in better working of the employment relations. Scholars have brought forth various frameworks and theoretical perspectives as per their understanding and analysis of the workplace situations and relations. In this context mention must be made of the two main theoretical perspectives, namely, unitary and pluralist perspectives respectively. The above two approaches have their own perspectives and interpretation of workplace conflicts, job regulations, role of unions etc. The main purpose of the project is to explore the different perspectives and evaluate their presence in modern organizational settings. It tries to understand the ideologies that underpin the managerial perspectives and the way they reflect in organizational life. The extent to which each of the perspectives predominates over the other is explored in the project (Wilton, 2010, p.36). Unitary perspective One of the most competing approaches towards the study of employment relations is based on the conservative ideological position called ‘unitary’. The most distinguishing characteristic which differentiate the unitary ideological perspective is the assumption that every work organization is considered to be an integrated entity which has a shared goal and a common purpose. Employment relationship according to the unitary perspective is based on the mutual harmony and cooperation of interest between the organization and its employees (Bray, 2011, p.21). It does not consider the possibility of conflicts between capital owners and workers. They are all considered to be belonging to the same team and having the very same objective which rules out the possibility of conflicts. Wherever there is prevalence of an industrial conflict, it is either treated as a temporary phenomenon or the result of abnormal behavior (Green, 2011, p.245). This behavior is commonly considered to be raised by trouble makers, bad communication and poor management. Moreover, in such cases unions are considered to be always being in competition with the management in order to gain commitment and loyalty of the employees (Bray, 2011, p.21). According to the unitary theorists, strong leadership is provided by the management in order to attain the commitment and loyalty of employees towards their work and also the organization itself. This perspective is necessarily management oriented (Bray, 2011, p.22). The management’s tendency to undertake or adopt this very perspective or approach is mainly because of their tendency to legitimate their authority. They act as the main organizational leaders and also represent the single source of authority. They also consider themselves as the single focus of loyalty. When there is no possibility of any aberrant or abnormal behavior employees are willing and expected to accept their authority. According to Boxall and Dowling (1990), while there can be considerable diversity within human resource management and some researchers claim that it is considered to be more consistent with pluralism. However, most authors are consistent with the view that HRM is unitary in its approach and ideological position. It perceives employees as well as employers as having the same interests and goals (Bray, 2011, p.22). According to Legge (1989), human resource management is a way of managing people emphasizing on the goals of organizational commitment and integration of policies and practices with the needs of the organization’s businesses. On the other hand, Story (1995), has described human resource management as an approach towards managing employees which seeks towards attaining and achieving competitive advantage through the strategic deployment of a highly capable and committed workforce (Bray, 2011, p.22). This is the reason why some authors have found the unitary approach as being more consistent with modern organizations and businesses. Purcel (1992), believes that human resource management is nothing but the visual embodiment of the unitary frame of reference both in terms of legitimating the authority of the management and also for considering the organization as a team comprising of committed employees and cooperatively working along with their management in the best interest of the firm (Bray, 2011, p.22). Pluralist perspective According to the pluralist perspective, organizations are composed of divergent and powerful subgroups. Each of these groups is considered to have their own legitimate loyalties with their own objectives and also with their own leaders. It can be said that in pluralist perspective the two most important sub groups in businesses are the management and the trade unions. Under this approach the role of management is less inclined towards controlling and enforcing and more inclined towards persuasion and coordination. Pluralist theorists consider trade unions as being legitimate bodies representing the interests of workers and dealing with conflicts between management and workers (Bray, 2011, p.12-13). Conflicts under this perspective is mainly done through collective bargaining and not necessarily considered to be having bad intentions. Rather trade unions are regarding as such bodies if managed well can be guided towards making positive changes and evolutions. According to Blyton an Tunrbull (1998), pluralism is that which recognizes the existence of an underlying social structure which has the potential or capability to create sectional sub groups and groups having their own interests and objectives and also to bring these groups into conflicts with one another because of their aim to seek and attain their respective goals and objectives (Bray, 2011, p.12-13). Completely in contrast with the unitary approach which considers only one source of power, the pluralist perspective particularly points towards the existence and prevalence of divergent groups having their own individual interests and objectives and also the existence of multiple forms of attachment and loyalty. The pluralist framework of analysis also throws light on the fact that employees belonging to different organizations could have similar interests and consequently by making horizontal linkages with such groups not belonging to the organizations through trade unions; a loyalty and commitment towards leaders not belonging to the management of the organization could be created or developed (Bray, 2011, p.13). Fox (1971) has shown his belief and importance on the fact that management must realize and recognize the existence of such legitimate sources of leadership and loyalty within the organizations and that it is also important for the management to share their powers, interests, and authorities to make decisions with these competing interest groups (Bray, 2011, p.13). It can be said that cooperation and trust within an organization cannot be attained and assumed easily. In the modern organizations, more so, cooperation is something which is unlikely to be attained through manipulation of team spirits, loyalty and morality. Rather cooperation must be attained through engineering by structural adaptations in the work organizations, work practices, work roles and responsibilities. Another important requirement in this regard is the need for communication and direct negotiations with the work groups. Communication is considered to be an essential component of the process (Bray, 2011, p.13). Although the pluralist perspective has provided immense theoretical perspective for academic work and research, many researchers have criticized over the definitional properties of the term pluralism. The definition has kept changing over time and there has been many debates regarding the same. One of the main concerns put forth by Child (1981) is that the approach assumes the balance of powers between the competing interest groups within the organization and within broader society (Bray, 2011, p.14). Hyman and Fryer (1975) are two researchers who are of the opinion that there is little symmetry in the power distribution between the management and employees unions (Bray, 2011, p.14). Rather they have the opinion that majority of the powers is rested with the management with very little left for the unions and workers. They have put forth the fact that to begin the analysis of industrial relations, there must be adequate and substantial imbalance of powers between labor and capital. This is directly derived from the fact the productive systems remain mainly in the hands and reach of a very small percentage of the society or rather a small minority of the population (Bray, 2011, p.14). The relevance and application of pluralism in modern organizations is the fact that here the managers are not only allow but actively foster and encourage liberty of expression of interests of workers and also the creation and development of groups and team. They can create their own norms and procedures and can also select their own team leaders. This is the way control and power might arise at various levels in the organization and thus leaders command complete loyalty and faithfulness from his team members and groups. These groups can also be in intense competition with one another. Managers use these groups in their advantage by encouraging participation from employees, by motivating them and also by collaborating and coordinating their work efforts and interests in ways best suited for the interests of the organization. This represents effective and good leadership although sometimes it might be difficult to attain the required balance and meet the interests of all the stakeholders associated with the organization (CIPD, 2006, p.3). Critical argument- The ideologies which underpin managerial perspectives The pluralist paradigm perceives work and the employment relations from a theoretical perspective which is deeply rooted in the fact that there exists conflict of interests between employees and employers who interact in imperfect conditions of labor market. In the present business scenario employment relations are considerably influenced by the bargaining problems existing between stakeholders and the presence of conflicting interests between them. Employment outcomes are directly associated with varied elements of the environment which determines the bargaining powers of each of the stakeholders. Modeling of the employment relationships as being a bargaining problem generates the main question as to the distribution of resources and the various rules influencing the interactions between the employees and their employers in organizations (Budd, Gomex & Meltz, 2004, p.2). This is where the importance of corporations, labor unions, dispute resolutions procedures, public policies are considered as crucial and important institutions. The present modern organizations also view employees, managers, union leaders and owners as being human agents rather than completely rational and economic agents. Thus is the importance of behavioral elements of individual decision making. This is also the reason for importance and consideration of cognitive limitations, cultural and social norms, emotions, habit and values and various other extrinsic elements such as motivators, concern towards others, justice and fairness (Budd, Gomex & Meltz, 2004, p.2). The pluralist perspective is also based on the perspective of balanced paradigm. It emphasizes on the need for balance and equilibrium between labor and capital rather than one dominating over the other one. According to the views of Kochan (1980), the theories of industrial relations, research and policy prescriptions must show awareness of the relationships between the goals and objectives of workers, employers and the society at large. It must also consider and find ways of attaining equitable and workable balance of interests. This is particularly true as it considers that income imbalances could lead to depression of economic growth and thus consequently reduce the purchasing power of consumers and thus reduce investments in physical and human capital (Budd, Gomex & Meltz, 2004, p.3). Too much power resting with corporate is likely to create substandard wages and improper working conditions and also create burden on the society in terms of creating welfare reducing social costs. Behavioral aspects of making decisions could have the implication that individual perceptions of fairness balances could have an impact on the employee turnovers, levels of productivity and other employee relations outcomes. Thus the central analytical principle of the pluralist perspective is that employment relations primarily generates not because they are extremely efficient but more because of the fact that they tend a strike a balance between the competing interests of the different stakeholders , individuals and institutions (Budd, Gomex & Meltz, 2004, p.3). From the standpoint of the unitary perception, social relations structure within organizations are considered to symbolize rational efforts for the development of the most effective and efficient means of attainment of common objectives and interests. This perspective throw light on the fact that managerial work is nothing but an expression of technical division of labor required for realizing organizational goals and objectives (Grey & Willmott, 2005, p.330). In other words it can be said the primary work of the managers is nothing but a functional element of the organization whose main responsibility is to rationalize all aspects of the organization such that the individual objectives of all members can be attained. This particular perspective of the social relations structure is visible in the human relations and classical account of management’s role (Grey & Willmott, 2005, p.330). From the standpoint of the pluralist perspective the unitary standpoint is not very convincing because in most of the large organizations the complexity with which labor is divided technically is such that individuals can be influenced and conditioned by specialized training and motivated through self interest in order to form coalitions for the sake of pursuing sectional objectives. Thus conflicts arising between the power holders in a pluralist perspective are considered to be endemic. Also managerial works are understood as being involving continuous efforts in order to attain consent or to contain conflicting interests in such ways which allows minimum sectional objectives fulfillment of members in the organizations (Grey & Willmott, 2005, p.330). These particular perspectives have been generally accepted by theorists who consider the unitary school of thought as being ideally unobtainable. This ideal must not be confused with reality and trying to make reality conform to it has been considered as being self defeating (Grey & Willmott, 2005, p.330). The main criticism leveled against the unitary perspective is its failure to identify and recognize political and economic nature of technical labor division. Considering the fundamental perspective the horizontal and vertical differentiation of tasks between groups and individuals cannot be explained completely or adequately by reference to the functional imperatives. On the other hand the unitary perspective is seen to sustain and reflect the power relations structure in the society. Managers are considered to be playing the role of specialists and technical role in the aspect of division of labor. However, these responsibilities and roles are considered to be influenced and conditioned by the political and economic structures in the capitalist societies (Grey & Willmott, 2005, p.330). Extensive debate has taken place with regards to the mutual exclusivity and incommensurable aspect of the different perspectives. Each of the approaches also represents their mark of origin. Unitary laid its origin in human relations while pluralism has its origin in organized collective bargaining (Grey & Willmott, 2005, p.330). Considering the unitary view, it would be wrong to assume that conflicts are completely unlikely and unsatisfactory reflection of organizational life. Even then this view has been able to make two different key points. First of all there were surveys which showed that managers and workers had a tendency to view their firms as unitary terms. For example, when questions were asked whether they considered their firm as an entire football team or whether workers and their employers were always playing as opponents, they seemed to agree mostly with the former fact. According to Goldhorpe (1968), one of these studies conducted in the US revealed that employees and employers primarily had the opinion that more unity meant more success and that teamwork always had the advantage of being able to attain success easily. Overt disputation seemed to be very rare in such cases. In the analytical levels there are instances of shared interests between the two perspectives. It can be understood that if both managers and workers was completely opposed to one another relationships at the workplace would break down completely and would not exist at all. Ramsay (1975) has thus put forth the fact that teamwork is not complete harmony, but rather interdendence of workers and management (Grey & Willmott, 2005, p.330). Teamwork is considered likely to mean practical and realistic acceptance for the requirement of cooperation. It was not considered to be a completely shared vision along with the management. When the employees or workers were asked questions whether teamwork was exactly that which described their own situation it was seen that it gradually declined. Thirdly a question was asked whether workers considered that teamwork was necessary because it helps to do things easily and quickly or because people are required to work collaboratively because workers and managers have similar likes and interests in everything that mattered (Dahl, 1978, p.191). The responses revealed the fact that most of them were in favor of the former statement and only very few seemed to abide by the latter. Practical acceptance with the present situations and conditions pre-dominated ideological agreement with the management (Dahl, 1978, p.191). Pluralism is more applicable in the present organizational scenario as individuals and groups keep struggling to attain their own autonomy in comparison of control of other people. They like to apply their efforts to gain control over others which is considered to be a very fundamental tendency of any political life. These struggles for attaining autonomy may arise from different cleavages and conflicts and success of these struggles results in creating a tendency towards reaching pluralism. Through the suppression of autonomy and prevention of public manifestations of cleavages and conflicts, a domination regime can disallow the creation or development of a pluralistic political and social order. During the times when the different barriers towards organized oppositions are reduced or lowered the tendency towards reaching pluralism and autonomy becomes evident and visible. In today’s business scenario there is great diversity in norms, customs, cultures, traditions and backgrounds which is why pluralism seems to be more applicable, suitable and visible also. Pluralism has also been termed as ‘diverse’ in the current business context (Dahl, 1978, p.191). Conclusion Considering the two perspectives of unitary and pluralism it is seen that the current business scenario reflects more the pluralist perspective in comparison to the unitary perspective. The first and most important assumption of pluralist school of thought is the fact that all work organizations are considered to be a single entity having a common goal and objective. Although this is true in most organizations and all efforts in them are directed in attaining the same goal and objective it cannot be said that there is complete harmony and cooperation in the work processes and the workers and managements. Today's organizations do reflect diverse interests of different workers and their managements too. Rather the present organizations do reflect diverse work groups and diverse interests too which abides by the pluralist perspective completely. As per the pluralist perspective, organizations comprise diverse groups and sub-group which are equally powerful as the managements. These groups do have their own legitimate powers and faithfulness towards their own goals and objectives and also with their own group leaders. The most important groups and subgroups identified in pluralist organizations are trade unions and the managements. It is seen that the management's role is rather inclined towards coordination and persuasion and less towards enforcing and controlling. Thus Pluralist theorists have considered trade unions bodies as legitimate bodies which reflect interests of their workmen and deal reasonably with conflicts arising between the managements and its workers. Considering the unitary view, it would be also be completely wrong to assume that cannot be occurrences or possibilities of conflicts in organizational life. This is true despite the fact managers and workers have a tendency towards viewing their organization as a single entity and all work processes directed towards attaining a common goal of the organization. However, it is also not possible to assume a complete disparity in interests of workers and managements in today’s work organization as this would mean a complete breakdown of the organizational structure. Reference Bray, D. W. W. (2011). Industrial Relations. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. Budd, J. W., Gomex, R. & Meltz, N. M. (2004). Why a balance is best: the pluralist industrial relations paradigm of balancing competing interests. [Pdf]. Available at: http://www.legacy-irc.csom.umn.edu/faculty/jbudd/research/buddgomezmeltz.pdf. [Accessed on January 27, 2012]. CIPD. (2006). The employee relationship. [Pdf]. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E148D57B-4C8F-4108-B22E-75CE4C9D46C8/0/tssihrmchap11.pdf. [Accessed on January 27, 2012]. Dahl, A. (1978). Pluralism Revisited. Vol. 10, No. 2, Jan., 1978. [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/pss/421645. [Accessed on January 27, 2012]. Green, S. D. (2011). Making Sense of Construction Improvement. John Wiley & Sons. Grey, C., & Willmott, H. (2005). Critical management studies: a reader. Oxford University Press. Wilton, N. (2010). An Introduction to Human Resource Management. SAGE Publications Ltd. Read More