Unitarism and Pluralism in Industrial Relations - Case Study Example

Introduction People in various settings are managed differently depending on the managements’ choice of approach to do so. The determiners of the approach to be adopted are but limited to the number of people to be managed, their age, task to be accomplished, the type of the organisation, rules and procedures followed and tradition held. For the purpose of this paper a closer look into unitarism and pluralism shall be emphasized. In particular a deeper insight shall be given in the account of their respective advantages and disadvantages. It is also important to notice that organisations can not operate under one of the two above in absolute terms and a common ground should be struck to realise the best results and harmony. Unitarism Approach Background This is the management approach that perceives that the organisation is a family-like setting and that the whole system is harmonious and integrated. In this approach the proponents are against the formation of trade unions or any activity that is taken to be disruptive (Charles & Simhala 1998). Therefore, all employees are required to be loyal to the organisation and that their interests and purpose need to be shared by all. In this respect harmony in doing ones duties is of huge importance as it is perceived to lead to the overall success of the organisation. The management takes all the employees and itself as a people working towards a common cause for the betterment of the organisation. In other words the entire workforce is supposed to work as a team and any objective that deviates and sounds to be conflicting is deemed negative or dysfunctional. In this approach the management is required to provide an environment that enhances communication between itself and the employees and among the employees themselves. Proper communication reduces chances of conflicts as the commonality of interest shall be achieved (Sonia 2000). Advantages of unitarism This approach has a number of pros that make it popular especially in the human resource sector of the United States. First is that the system or approach encourages harmony and builds on consensus. This as described in its definition above takes the core and therefore the foremost reason behind its adoption (Ackers 2008). Harmony and consensus are achieved since the employees and the management are made to work together in achieving the organisational goals and objectives. As also highlighted earlier the improved communication among the various parties enhances good relations that endeavour to promote peaceful coexistence. Secondly is that the approach makes the employees become adopted into a culture that enhances team work and cooperation in performing the required tasks (Gerring & Thacker 2004; Alan 2009). This in turn results in sharing of ideas thus resulting to better quality as well as higher output. The other advantage is that there is huge respect towards the employees as this is what the approach emphasises. Since the management and the rest of the workforce work together in realising the common goal, the employees are rarely demeaned or looked down upon. There is also the aspect of sharing of information freely within and between hierarchies since all workers are supposed to be having a great deal of interaction in the course of their duty. When the employees feel they are respected their morale levels rise and so is their output and commitment to their work. Therefore, the approach leads to almost definite rate of success to the organisation. The decision making responsibility is left to the management but due to the much interaction involved, much and wide consultations are inevitable whereby all the stakeholders to a certain decision are consulted (Cooper et al. 2008). In this case the policies developed or strategies adopted out of these consultations result into wide acceptance and less conflict; one of the main aims of this approach. Disadvantages of unitarism This approach has its share of drawbacks that are inherent to the organisations that adopt it. In the natural world, people act differently and think differently. Some employees will be unwilling to conform to the standards set and in turn bring in conflict that are at times unfounded while at other well based. As a result they are taken to be disloyal to the management and to the rest of the organisation at large since they are not working in harmony in achieving the set targets and objectives. As can now be noticed, this approach can only be well adopted where the people to be managed are few since a common purpose is well achieved this way (Laurie 2007). The more the people involved the more the likelihood of having many with opposing opinions and holding different interests. This approach is one that does not tolerate divergent views from the employees. This is an aspect the at times is regarded to be dictatorial since those with differing opinions are not free to express them. In some cases the management consults only a few individuals and comes up with a policy that affects all. This draws some level of criticism from those opposing the various directives within the organisations (Charles & Simhala 1998). The other negative side of this policy is the wide criticism it receives out of the decisions made that call for all to follow a certain direction. These type of organisations also hold some norms that all should conform to. This is taken to be too mechanical a system because that which is done is already known and always done as so. This also creates boredom since the employees in most cases work on routine basis such that that which they did yesterday is what they will be doing even in ten months (Alan et al. 2009). Pluralism approach Background This is a management approach that recognises that people have different perceptions, interests and aspirations. The approach takes the model that no one dominates the other in an organisation and that the management and the trade unions form the main subgroups. This is after the realization that conflict in the workplace is unavoidable and channels to solve it need to be created (Wilson 2005). The management’s role is more of coordination rather than that of controlling. Trade unions are fully recognised and have the mandate of representing the employees of a firm. Conflicts are managed collectively and they are viewed as channels of innovation and better governance. It proposes that with conflict comes propensity more than harmony. In this approach the management needs to be well aware of conflict resolution approaches so as to face the challenges and conflicts that occur between them and the trade unions. This calls for the managers to master the art of negotiation as many agreements shall be arrived at after they engage in ample negotiations with the trade unions. In this respect the employees are not taken to be obedient followers since they have the right to question the management’s decisions and practices. Advantages of pluralism This approach is advantageous in that there is better planning and order in how the various activities and operations are carried out in the organisation. This is as a result of the fact that the operations are carried out as per the agreed rules and procedures between the management and the worker’s union (Alan 2009). The decisions made are better since they are resulted into after wide consultations are made between the trade union leaders and the managers. All the viewpoints are brought to the table and then negotiated upon so as to come up to a consensus or a common ground. Due to the improved communication, the worker’s responses and the management’s feedback are relayed timely and efficiently. This is facilitated by the formal nature that the trade union model brings. In this case workers elect a number of representatives who negotiate on terms of employment on their behalf reducing complexity. Another advantage is that the model encourages stability in an organisation through compromises that tend to set a common ground on issues earlier disputed (Alan 2009). The management takes time to listen to the grievances brought forth by the union leaders while the leaders listen to the views presented by the management. This approach also creates a sense of balance among the various stakeholders of the organisation since all are involved and consulted in decision making in a formal manner. Disadvantages The approach is known to have a number of areas that are worth criticising. The first is that it introduces a bureaucratic system that takes a long time for a decision to be arrived upon (Redman & Wilkinson 2006). The reason for this is that the parties to negotiations hold divergent views that coming to a common ground, takes time as all hold to what they believe is in the best of their interests. The approach is taken to be less functional in situations where the managers and the workers are in close contact. Therefore, there is no need to have a body representing workers in meetings with the management. The approach is also disadvantageous in that in most cases the managers ignore the other party’s views as they always adopt that which they take to be in the best interest of the organisation. An example of this is the situation where cost cutting measures need to be enforced and one of the target areas is retrenchment or layoffs. In this scenario the management will enforce this despite protests from the trade union leaders (Bray 2008). It is important to note that the management acts in most occasions in the best interest of the shareholders or owners of the organisation rendering the voices of the employees fruitless. The approach also invokes a situation of dilemma on this side of the employees. This is as a result of the loyalty pledges they bear with the organisation, trade union and with themselves in terms of personal interests that may not be reflected by the trade union or the management. Not all decisions arrived at are in every worker’s best interest and this results in employees feeling left out and at some points result to strikes for them to push their agenda (Jim 2000). Another case in point comes from the fact that due to the collective bargaining nature of this approach, the hard working and economically motivated employees are not adequately rewarded. This in many cases results in low morale with such employees. Recommendations In this paper it has been found that each approach has its advantages as well as shortcomings. It is hereby important to consider all the above critically so as to develop or adopt the best approach that suits an organisation. Another consideration is that each organisation has unique characteristics that call for variations in the policies and procedures adopted in managing people. A firm that has a few staff members will most likely find operating under absolute unitarism to be convenient but those with huge workforce and branches need to adopt pluralism (Keegan & Boselie 2006). However, as much as organisations are unique there is the need to adopt and blend the two approaches in order to achieve efficient management. Small firms should have one or two people representing others to the manager or management and act as a link. With the big firms the need to work towards a common goal and objectives should be emphasized and properly relayed to the workers representatives so as to ensure unity of purpose. Conclusion Organisations have various ways they have adopted or devised that assist the management to manage the workforce. The approaches taken should reflect the nature of the organisation and the interests of all the stakeholders. The size of the firm in most cases dictates the management style to be adopted. The approach to managing people can be unitarism or pluralism and in the case of this paper the recommended one being a blend of the two so as to achieve the best results. It is not easy to mange people and careful consideration and analysis of the pros and cons of each of the above approach should be done so as to arrive at the best that suits the organisation or firm in question. References Ackers, P 2008, Reframing employment relations: The case for neo-pluralism, Industrial Relations Journal, viewed 30 April 2010 from, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118941430/abstract vol 33 Issue 1, pp. 2 – 19. Alan, G, Fiona, E & Ian M, May 2009, Workplace values and beliefs: an empirical study of ideology, high commitment management and unionisation, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol 20, Issue 5, pp. 1146 – 1171. Alan, P 2009, Human resource management in a business context: Pluralism in industrial relations, Cengage Learning EMEA. Bray, WC, Mark, B, Waring PA & Cooper, R 2008, Employment relations: Theory and practice, McGraw-Hill. Charles, A & Simhala, KS 1998, Unitarism, devolution, and majoritarian elitism: A response to the interim report of the Sinhala Commission, Social Scientists' Association. Cooper, BW, Mark, B, Waring, PA & Cooper, R 2008, Employment relations: Theory and practice, McGraw-Hill. Gerring, J & Thacker, SC 2004, British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press. Jim, B 2000, Organization and management: A critical text, Cengage Learning EMEA. Keegan, A & Boselie, P November 2006.The lack of impact of dissensus inspired analysis on developments in the field of human resource management, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43, No. 7, pp. 1491-1511. Laurie, JM 2007, Management and organisational behaviour, 8th edn, Financial Times, Prentice Hall. Redman, T & Wilkinson, A 2006, Contemporary human resource management: Text and cases, FT/Prentice Hal. Sonia, B 2000, The basics of labour relations, Juta and Company Ltd. Wilson, JP 2005, Human resource development: Learning & training for individuals & organizations, Kogan Page Publishers. Read More