UK Employers and Human Resource Management - Essay Example

?Over the past 30 years there appears to have been a gradual movement by UK employers towards Human Resource Management (HRM) strategies, with their emphasis on a unitarist ideology, when dealing with the employment relationship – Management Labour has always been among the most important production inputs for firms, be they coming from the service or the manufacturing industry. Indeed, the business environment as we know today has gone through tremendous leaps and bounds wherein the forces of globalization and technological innovations have greatly played out. Consequently, there are even factories that have automated their processes immensely reducing the manpower complement needed for production. Moreover, these companies have invested heavily on machineries in an effort to bring down costs and improve their respective production process. However, manpower cannot be totally replaced by machines. Despite the technological advances, the globalization swamping businesses worldwide has necessitated an ever more strategic approach to human resource management. Therefore, it is important that managers are able to decipher trends that may impact their companies. Still, it is also equally important to note that in manpower management, the people are a very crucial consideration as this plays out strongly in the company’s image. Empowerment has been very crucial to enhancing the productivity of these workers. However, to empower workers means that there must be a certain degree of participation on the part of these employees. Hence, Farnham (2000) recognizes the importance of the capability of a firm’s employees to participate wherein these workers ought to enjoy democracy in their respective workplaces wherein they are looped in by the company’s management in the very important decision making process. Democracy in the workplace also affords these employees the freedom of expression enabling them to raise questions on issues that may impact them. Collapse of the Unions In this regard, the respective unions of employees have been very crucial in helping the labourers of a company to voice out their concerns. However, through the last three decades, there has been a weakening of these social structures which has enabled UK employers to have a firmer grasp on their employees to the detriment of their Labour force. Howell (2005) laments about the weakening and eventual demise of the once mighty Labour movement which bannered a significant victory for politicians against the various unions in the state. It seems that there has been a potent combination of various judicial and legislative actions as well as various forms of administrative measures coupled with various crises to forge a new way of relating to the Labour force. The gradual weakening of the system has significantly weakened the once formidable unions of the country paving the way for companies to further flex their influences over their employees. This weakening eventually resulted in a gradual shift of human resources strategies to favour a more unitarist approach to human resource management. Indeed, according to Howell (2005) the state has played a very pivotal role in this development. As mentioned. The various legislations and even the crisis of 1979 have been instrumental in the decade’s long transformation of the employment conditions of the UK. Slowly but surely, the balance of power gradually tilted sharply towards the employers. As the hold of the employers strengthened, they are able to impose additional regulations and procedures with little or even no dialogues with their employees. Bennet (1997) stresses that this can be detrimental to the firm as it is tantamount to forcing the will of the organization to the employees. In so doing, important suggestions and signals may be lost wherein the employees are just made to follow the orders of the company. Unfortunately, these tend to be detrimental since they are able to foster resentments rather than conflict resolutions when the employees are by passed by these procedures. Moreover, it is important to note that the manpower of the company are unlike other resources that can easily be disposed of or are machines that can be just turned on and off at the mere caprice of the company. Indeed, there may be procedures or new policies that will truly improve the workplace and be beneficial to the employees but it is also a fact that the person from the top, which is the top management, has a different vantage point from the ones at the bottom. Therefore, communication is key to make their labourers understand that the new policies or procedures are advantageous to the employees. The Employee Relations Evolution There have been so many developments that have transpired over the last three decades which have greatly impacted the way business is done in the UK and even the whole world. Hence, Williams and Adam-Smith (2006) urges companies to recognize the prevalent forces in the business environment of today. Among the foremost forces that are of grave importance today is the impact of globalization on businesses and this includes the way companies relate to their employees. Moreover, it is important to note that trade liberalization has offered a myriad of opportunities for many different businesses. Also, the strengthening of multilateral trade agreements and their respective governing economic and trade bodies have a very strong impact in the way things are done nowadays. In the UK for example, the European Union offers a host of opportunities for different businesses since trade rules are more lenient among member nations. This is something that companies can take advantage of but must also serve as a reminder that there are also problems that may arise since the influx of different cultures from different member nations offer challenges to the way businesses are managed and different strategies are calibrated to achieve their desired business results. Effective management of human resources therefore factor in crucially. Hence, Bratton and Gold (2003) urges a more strategic approach whereby the way employers relate to their employees has been a very important enabler for the companies to be able to bring out their true potential and capabilities. Moreover, the increasing complexities of everyday living have opened up more awareness for having a work-life balance. Managing Manpower Among the four basic factors of production which are land, Labour, capital and enterprise; probably Labour is the hardest to manage since this involves human beings and their respective complexities. People cannot be turned on and off like machines nor can their productivity be increased by turning up the lever from low to medium to high. In order to get the most out of them, Blyton and Turnbull (2004) strongly suggest that training opportunities are made available to a company’s employees. Also, it is likewise important that career advancements become open to employees through various internal placements. That way, employees that have tried to improve themselves but do not have a career path or their career path is blocked in their respective departments then they can transfer to other responsibility centers which must not be the case since Collin and Watts (1996) links the importance of having a pertinent career path and cost reduction. Indeed, training new employees can be costly and cumbersome. It is encouraging though that there seem to be a renewal of interests in involving employees and allowing them to participate more. Participation is indeed key and the employers ought to develop partnership with their employees (Schuler and Jackson, 2000). Possibly in an attempt to counteract the prevailing unitarist approach, the Labour Government has tried to rekindle the partnership spirit that is very important in the employee relations of companies in the UK. This, however, has seen more promise in theory than in actual practical applications since there are thorny issues that may hinder the full utilization of this principle. One would be the difficulty in measuring up the extent to which the employee can impact decisions within the organization. Moreover, such effort necessitates a choice between an equal opportunities approach and one that is driven by diversity management. Culture also factors in strongly. Hence, Guest (1997) laments about the lack of integration which stifles the effective conduct of HR practices in different work places. The former is externally driven and has an operational direction while the latter emerges from within the organization and is strategic in nature. Moreover, it is important to note that being diversity driven pays out, the drive for equality can cost the company money. In addition, the growth of the individual is given additional preference in the diversity management approach while the equality focuses more on the group as a whole and in this case the former is more focused on outcome which gives it a more businesslike case as compared to the more social and ethical case presented by the latter which is also process focused (Nicholls, Hollinshead and Tailby, 2003). Inclination to Unitarist Ideology As mentioned, the weakening of the Labour union in the UK has been instrumental in the relative preference of employers to lean to unitarist ideology. Unfortunately, this has brought great insecurity to the employees of the various UK companies because of the perception that implicit contracts are being violated. The preferences to advance management prerogatives rather than to dissect and hear out valid employee concerns have weakened the management-employee relations to the point wherein the employees become insecure of their jobs. This has resulted to the fear that they will not be able to have career advancements. Unfortunately, this worrying has replaced the possible creative thinking necessary to push the company forward through innovation. However, this tends to get worse as employees that get disenchanted about the prospects of career growth may look for the door and even go into the competitors of the company (Heery and Salmon, 2000). It is worth noting that only the permanent employees can feel and enjoy these implicit contracts as temporary or contractual employees have limited stints with their employers. However, these permanent employees are the ones that can be able to contribute to the innovation needs of the company since they may have been with the company for some time already gaining valuable experience and insights as to how the company operates. Moreover, these employees may have gained their permanency status because of their contributions or their capability to contribute further to the company. Severing the implicit contracts can therefore prove to be very disturbing to these employees since they may feel left out with no clear future for the company. In making the employees feel these, the company tends to lose out valuable talents to competitors and miss out on the opportunity to push through with innovative ideas as their thinkers become preoccupied with the insecurities that they face and fee. Hence, Heery and Salmon (2000) emphasizes the need for these implicit contracts to be properly taken cared of by their employers. Moreover, Rollinson and Dundoon (2007) stresses the need for the enhancement of employee relations in order to ensure their productivity. The focus on management prerogative brought about by the inclination of UK employers towards the unitarist ideology tends to put them at risk in the business environment of today that is governed by the forces of globalization and technological developments. Nowadays, innovation is key to the survival and success of firms. It is therefore a must that firms innovate to ensure their sustainability and avoid being edged out by a more innovative upstart. Therefore, it is clear that the unitarist inclination tends to give problems not just to the employees but to the companies they work for as well since these companies tends to lose out on the flexibility needed in order to innovate due to the centralized nature of decision making. Also, as mentioned, it is the permanent employees that tend to be affected by this unitarist ideology through their loss of faith in their implicit contracts with the company. These permanent employees can be the source of innovative ideas and replacing their capability to think creatively with the worries of their job insecurity can adversely affect company’s ability to innovate. Striking a Balance However, as mentioned, it is not easy to measure and line up the extent to which the employees can be able to impact management decisions. Moreover, possibly because of the global economic crisis that adversely affected the advanced economies, the UK included, the strategy to hire temporary or contractual and even part-time employees has been warranted by the need to cut costs. Still, there will always be permanent employees that the company will need to maintain. Moreover, Huslid (1995) recognizes the importance of the capability of workers to perform well since their performances can be considered valuable economic assets for the company. Hence, these permanent employees should therefore be managed accordingly in order for them to contribute to their full potential. Yet again, labour can be the most cumbersome of the four factors of production for the firms. Worker productivity is not increased by a mere push of a button or the adjustment of a lever. Employee relations therefore factor in crucially in this endeavour. (Gennard, 2005). These employees must be substantially motivated and among the greatest motivators is the aforementioned participation of these employees. Unfortunately, the inclination towards a unitarist approach tends to take this participation away which can be equated to a detrimental step backwards in a business environment wherein decentralization has been a key enabler for business success. As such, employee suggestions and even conflicts are banged up against a wall of management prerogatives that effectively stifles the creativity of these employees. This tends to rob the top management or the employees for that matter of valuable inputs that may help them improve their organization and craft strategies that are attuned to the demands of the current business environment. It is very important to remember that these employees are usually the ones in contact with suppliers and customers from which the employer can get valuable insights into the needs and wants of the market that they are trying to serve. It is then important to ensure that policies are recalibrated so that the prevailing preference towards the unitarist ideology within UK firms is curbed. Unfortunately, it is not only the employees that will feel the impact. Though the stated problems are already enough especially with the risk that the affected employees might go to their competitors. However, Reilly (2001) highlights the impact that the globalization has for the new business environment. Hence, it is important that the companies must have organizations that are flexible enough to handle the challenges that the new business environment has for the companies of today. This, of course, includes the UK firms. Hence, it is important that the flexibility of the organization is maintained, and if possible, further strengthened. This involves the important consideration for their employees which takes into account the tasks assigned to them as well as their work patterns and even the length of time that they work. Moreover, being able to adjust with the demands of work is a very important strength for a company which is very important for the UK companies in order to adapt to the challenges of globalization. As such, many companies are inclined to take in temporary employees. More importantly, Reilly (2001) lauds the efforts of some companies to be able to develop family friendly policies with the flexible work schedule that they are offering to companies. Still, it is important to note that the compelling need to balance the needs and wants of the employer with those of their employees is key to the capability of the company to handle the challenges posed by the external and internal environment. However, this capability has been greatly threatened by the prevailing unitarist ideology of the UK companies. Conclusion The employers in the UK have been inclined to the unitarist ideology. As such, the will of the individual tends to be superseded by the will of the organization. Management prerogative has also been the preferred response of employers against various concerns and conflicts that tends to be raised by the employees. Unfortunately, the bargaining power of the employees in the country has been greatly weakened along with the diminishing influence of the Labour unions wherein, the state itself played a pig role in the demise of such institutions (Howell, 2005). Hence, these employees have been left out to fend for themselves amid the increased power of their employers over them. This situation is detrimental to the employees as it signals the degradation of the implicit contracts that they enjoy from being permanent employees. With a seemingly absence of democracy in their jobs, these employees find themselves at a loss for career advancement. This breeds insecurity in the company’s Labour force which leads to the replacement of creative thinking by worrying and on worst case, departures by employees to other companies possibly to competitors (Heery and Salmon, 2000). Hence, it is important that UK companies veer away from the prevailing unitarist ideology as it tends to erode the capability of their companies to adapt in the business environment that demands innovation. The possibility of a drain in their talent pool can only offer employers and employees as lose-lose situation. Indeed, having an increased leverage may seem like a very important aspect in the short-run but management prerogative may, in the end, make the employers lose out on the opportunities that can be provided by the employees that they tend to disregard. References Bennett, R. (1997). Employee relations (2nd ed). Pitman, London. Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (2004). The dynamics of employee relations (3rd ed). Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Bratton, J., and Gold, J. (2003). Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice, 3rd edition, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire. Collin, A. and Watts, A.G. (1996). The death and transfiguration of career- and of career guidance?. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, Vol.20, No.2,pp.385-398 Farnham, D. (2000). Employee relations in context (2nd ed). CIPD, London. Gennard, J. (2005). Employee relations (4th ed). CIPD, London. Guest, D. (1997). Human resource management and performance: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263-276 Heery, E. and Salmon, J. (2000). The insecure workforce. Routledge, London. Huslid, M. 1995. The impact of HRM practices on turnover, productivity and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635-672 Howell, C. (2005). Trade unions and the state: the construction of industrial relations institutions in Britain 1890-2000. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Nicholls, P. Holllinshead, G. and Tailby, S. (2003). Employee relations (2nd ed). FT Pitman, London. Reilly, P.A. (2001). Flexibility at work: Balancing the interests of employer and employee. Gower, Aldershot. Rollinson, D. and Dundoon, T. (2007). Employee relations. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead. Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (2000). Managing Human Resources, A Partner Perspective 7th edn. Thomas Learning, London. Williams, S. and Adam-Smith, D. (2006). Contemporary employment relations: A critical introduction. Oxford University Press. Read More