Unitarist vs Pluralist Approach to the Management of Employment - Report Example

Paper XXXX XXXXX Number: XXXXXXXX of XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXDate of Submission: XX – XX – 2009 What do you consider to be the main differences between a unitarist and pluralist approach to the management of the collective employment relationship? Introduction: Employee relation is a very vast and complex topic. There have been numerous theories that have been developed in regards to employee relation. These theories have been a part of our daily lives and it is seen that even though people tend to be following the processes it is quite rare that the focus falls on the theories themselves. As explained by Adam and Meitz (1993): ‘By choosing a theory one organises reality’. There has been a wide and vast range of theories that have been developed over the years. This report aims at analysing the differences between two such stereotypical theories, i.e. Unitarist and Pluralist in the management of collective employment relationships. Unitarist Approach: The unitary approach to management is where there is an integrated and harmonious entity that subsists for common purposes (William & Smith, 2006). This theory portrays the employer and employee relationship to be one where there is harmony and understanding. The main assumption of this theory is that there are a common set of values and these bind the two parties, i.e. the employer and the employee together. Also these ensure that there are no conflicts among the two parties. This is one of the oldest theories that have been developed to describe employment relationship however it is one which clearly and very smoothly connects to the contemporary methods as well. These include the ideas related to the corporate culture and human resources management. However there are a number of drawbacks of this theory as well. Firstly, it fails to recognise the difference between the interests of the managements and those of the employees. The theory only assumes that all decisions made by managers is in the interest of the employees. There is a lack of good communication in this theory and including bettered communication is the only mode of explaining the countervailing force in all cases including, individuals, groups and even trade unions. Also as explained by Palmer (1983), where conflicts arise, the conflicts should be resolved by dismissing the employee or with the interference of law. Pluralist Approach: Although the Unitarian theory was available, with the growing amount of complexity and the increased scales of business units, there was a strong need for a theory to be developed to be stronger in nature than that of the Unitarian theory. This theory required being able to accept that there are always a limited amount of conflicts that are present in an organisation and this needed to be a mode of achieving a consensus among the two parties, i.e. the employees and the management. This theory as well has a number of drawbacks like the Unitarian theory (Taylor, 2009). This theory is very similar to the Unitarian theory, i.e. it also leads to similar results, i.e., a consensus however this theory does take into account the existence of issues and conflicts within the organisation. This theory has been recognised to reflect the ideas of modern democracy legitimating trade union recognition. Also this theory falls under the stereotypical view. There has been a limited view and the power sharing in terms of the decision making has also been limited (Salamon, 1998). Collective Employment Relationship: Britain has currently been going through a phase where there is a need for employers to be able to have strong employment relations with both individuals as well as collective representatives in the work places. The employment relationship is one of the main methods of socio – economic exchange in the society and is therefore considered to be the fundamentals for the success of the human resource management in any organisation. Collective employment relations has been defined as, "...a method of determining terms and conditions of employment which utilises the process of negotiation and agreement between representatives of management and employees" (Salamon, M, 1998). There has been a great deal of unionism that has started post the trade union movement. However in recent times there has been a strong effect and requirement to change the situation. To do so there have been a number of employers who have been led to force single table bargaining or de – recognition and also unions being led through amalgamation. The attitudes have however been changing and the unions have been noted to be more adopting as pro active stance at national levels (Clawson, 1980). Also there has been seeking of change in terms of their stance to lead to more involved and cooperative and also build partnership approaches. Comparison of Approaches: Based on the understanding of the terms of Unitarian and Pluralistic theory, it is now simpler to form the main differences in these two theories in terms of the collective employment relations. In a situation where there is the existence of the collective employment relations, it has been noted that pluralistic approaches is relatively resilient. This however does not mean that the Unitarian method is a relatively stronger method. “Purcell (1987) explains that the unitarist and pluralist frames of references are rather narrow, restrictive and most importantly, ‘mutually exclusive’. He focuses on the interconnections between individualism and collectivism, arguing that the wide variations found in unitary and pluralist practices often overlap” (Hollinshead, et.al., 2003). This explains the initiatives that are taken by the managements for the unitarist influenced employee involvement schemes such as team – working and total quality management which have been introduced. This involves negotiation to take place especially in places where trade unions maintain collective bargaining rights. Taylor has contributed to the field and had written in 1903, ‘In an executive work which involves the co – operation of two different men or parties, where both parties have anything like equal power or voice in its direction, there is almost sure to be a certain amount of bickering, quarrelling and vacillation, and the success of the enterprise suffers accordingly. If, however, either one of the parties has the entire direction, the enterprise will progress consistently and probably harmoniously, even although the wrong one of the two parties may be in control. The essence of task (scientific) management lies in the fact that the control of the speed problem rests entirely with the management’ (Clawson, 1980). It is essential to understand that the major difference that is present in the pluralism approach and the Unitarian approach is that, the Unitarian approach does not take into consideration the real world scenarios and does not interpret the fact that when two groups are present in a place there ought to be a number of issues and conflicts. The two theories although are different it is essential to also note that the two have features of their own. Based on these features it is clear that the pluralist approach which is better for negotiation with groups keeping in mind their interest and also considers the view point of latterly stakeholders perspectives. The differences among the two are very clear, yet in a number of cases of collective employment relationships, it is seen that both are used despite the advantages and disadvantages of both (Morrow, 2003). Also it is essential to understand that with the expansion of the unitarist philosophy the main ideology that has been on is the efforts of the employers to convince the employee that the organisational values are right and that organisations take into consideration the needs of the employees. Also as already discussed in the previous sections, the basis of the Unitarian theory is based on the points that the organisational values are always right and in the interest of the employees at all times. However it is also essential to note that the individualisation of the employment in recent times has led to lowered trade unions and the influence of these on the management as well. Conclusions: In conclusion it is safe to say that the Unitarian method that has been developed is better linked to a nineteenth century employment, where the management was only worried about the employees and their success. This method has been developed basing the idealised relationship at work which suits the management. It was also the case that the management would exploit the employees and they would be able to achieve all of their objectives based on the expenses of the employees (Gennard & Judge, 2005). It also fits into situations where the management articulate the business needs and the main focus is more has a strong managerial bias and is the employee relations are one – sided. Considering the pluralism factors, it is the ability of both sides to maintain the independence of each other and appear to retain the independent positions and suggestions as well. Crouch (1977) has rightly suggested: ‘Management have usually succeeded in conceding pluralism over a limited range of issues (wage bargaining, low level aspects of control of work process), while maintaining intact a monist position on the more strategic issues of the company or industry – level action’. Considering the above discussion, it is understood that a collective employment relationship is a situation where the all the regulations, and other nifty gritty of the job is discussed between the management and joint authorship on behalf of the employees. Here it is sure to have a number of issues and conflicts and is normally very complex. As explained by Purcell (1987), the two theories that have been discussed are very narrow in nature and restrictive. Bibliography Adam, R.J., and Meitz, N. M., (1993). Industrial Relations Theory its Nature, Scope and Pedagogy, IMLR Press /Rutgers University and Scarecrow Press, inc Metchen, NJ and London Clawson, D., (1980), Bureaucracy and the Labour Process: The transformation of the US Industry 1860 – 1920, New York: Monthly Review Press Crouch, C. (1977), Class Conflict and the Industrial relations Crisis, London: Heinemann Gennard, J. & Judge, G., (2005), Employee Relations, 1st January 2005, 4th Edition, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Hollinshead, G., Nicholls, P., & Tailby, S. (2003), Employee Relations, 2nd edition, Pearson Education Limited Morrow, T., (2003), Employee Relations (1), School of International Business, Accessed on 22nd July 2009, Avaiable at: http://www.busmgt.ulst.ac.uk/modules/bmg775m2/lecture6.doc Palmer, G., (1983), British Industrial relations, London: Unwin Hyman Purcell, J., (1987), Mapping Management Styles in Employee relations’, Journal of Management Studies, 24 (5): 533 – 48 Salamon, M, (1998), Industrial Relations: Theory and practice, 3rd Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Taylor, R., (2009), The future of Employment Relations, An ESRC Future of Work Programme Seminar Series, Accessed on 20th July 2009, Available at: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/fow_publication_1_tcm6-6059.pdf William & Smith, A., (2006), Contemporary Employment Relations, Accessed on 21st July 2009, Available at: http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199272433/01student/glossary/ch01_gloss.pdf Read More