The Best Approach in Managing the Use of Contingent Workers - Report Example

The Best Approach in Managing the Use of Contingent Workers Total Number of Words 437 Introduction As a result of the constantly changing economic condition, non-standard working arrangement such as the act of offering part-time, contractual, and temporary job to qualified employees is becoming a common trend in tourism industry (Chang & Liao, 2009). Although this particular HR strategy could lessen the overal fixed operation cost of a company aside from enabling tourism businesses deal with the changes in the market demand, the article written by Chang and Liao (2009) suggest that the use of non-standard employment relations technique could result to a long-term employement dissatisfaction. It remains a challenge for HR managers to keep part-time or contractual employees motivated and loyal to the company. To enable the readers to have a better understanding of the subject matter, the differences between a unitarist and pluralist approach in human management will be defined, compared and contrast. In relation to the modern HR management trend, reasons that makes a combination of unitarist and pluralist approach the best choice in managing contingent workers will be tackled in details. As part of the main discussion, examples related to recruitment and selection processes as well as remuneration will be included. Definition and Differences between Unitary and Pluralist Approach Using either authoritarian or paternalistic attitude, unitary approach highlights the importance of establishing a harmonious and integrated system within a business organization such that employees are able to develop a unified organizational goal while working as a team whereas pluralist approach acknowledge the presence of different groups within a business organization which often result to internal conflicts between employer and employees (Gennard & Judge, 2005, pp. 55 – 56). To resolve organizational conflicts, establishing a collective relationships among the stakeholders is necessary. In a unitary approach, it is assumed that employers and employees have a commonly shared interests such that internal conflicts which may arise between employers and employees is a result of poor HR management. With regards to employment opportunity, unitarism approach provides qualified applicants with a long-term employment opportunity. However, a unitary perspective can be considered as insufficient and ineffective in today’s HR strategies since bargaining process between employers and employees is not applicable (Ghoshal, 2005; Adams, 2001). Under a pluralist approach, internal conflicts which may arise between employers and employees are considered inherent within the employment relationship (Kochan & Katz, 1988, p. 6). Since a pluralist industrial relations allows the freedom between employers and employees to enter into a negotiation process, HR problems related to the agreed wages, employment packages and benefits, or business profits can be easily arranged accordingly. Reasons that Makes a Combination of Unitarist and Pluralist Approach the Best Choice in Managing Contingent Workers Job relocation to low-wage countries or the offering of part-time jobs or freelance work opportunities to qualified applicants is becoming the global trend in most modern businesses wherein demand for business opportunity is irregular (Chang & Liao, 2009). When managing contigent workers such as those who have either part-time or freelance jobs, the application of a combination of unitarist and pluraist approach is more effective as compared to the use of unitary approach alone. As a result of globalized market, internal conflicts between the interest of employers and employees could arise anytime. There will always be some workers who would appreciate having a full-time work than a part-time job. Regardless of employee performance, a full-time job can make employees more secure in terms of the fixed salary they will receive on a later date. Because of the tight competition in the global market, employers are more interested in having contractual workers to enable the company to cut down on fixed operational cost whenever possible. It is given that each employee has a diverse interest which makes it impossible for employers and employees to have a commonly shared interests without encountering internal conflicts between the two groups of stakeholders (Kelloway, Gallagher, & Barling, 2004, pp. 105 – 131). This is true simply because of the fact that there are a lot of employers and employees interests that clashes one way or the other. Little power at work can result to low motivation among workers (Cameron, Mcphail, & Ailkinson, 2008, p. 197). In general, most employees are more interested not only in fairness in employment but also the monetary gain they will receive out of working for an employer, work environmental safety as well as power and control within the workplace (Poole et al., 2005; Singer, 2000, p. 35). On the other hand, employers are more interested in hiring qualified employees to perform technical jobs that are needed for them to earn more profit, gain control and power within the business organization, and stakeholder value (Ghoshal, 2005; Poole et al., 2005; Jacoby, 2001). Since employers will always have a greater bargaining power as compared to employees under a unitary setting, it is safe to conclude that this approach is considered less applicable in today’s economic condition without combining it with pluralist approach. Let us take into consideration some of the HR issues related to recruitment and selection processes. We all know that offering work flexibility during a serious economic recession is a good HR strategy since the use of competitive HR approach can save the company a large sum of unnecessary operational expenses. However, HR managers should also consider the fact that there will always be some highly qualified applicants who would prefer to have a full-time job rather than being a part-time employee. In line with this, the HR manager should be able to bargain and choose the best work flexibility options that would increase the interest of a prospective employee to join the company. The use of a pure unitarist approach will not be effective in terms of encouraging a prospective applicant to join the company since a unitarist approach does not provide the HR managers the option to enter into a bargaining agreement with the target applicant. For this reason, the use of a pure unitarist approach could make the company lose the chance of having a competitive individual join the team. Although the use of pluralist approach is effective in terms of encouraging the target applicant to join the team by entering into a win-win negotiation in terms of the agreed wages, employment security, and employment packages and benefits, the use of pure pluralist approach may not be 100% effective in terms of aligning the interests of employers and employees. The fact that a pluralist view of employment relationship does not focus on the importance of employment policies and practices makes it difficult for the HR manager to align the interest of employer and employee during the recruitment and selection process (Lewin, 2001). Likewise, we should not neglect the fact that the use of a unitarist approach can still be effective in terms of designing a valid and reliable employee selection measurement which can be useful in the recruitment and selection process of new applicants or even the need to promote an existing employee for outstanding job performance. To increase employees’ work motivation, there is a need to offer them monetary rewards on top of their salary and wages (Cameron, Mcphail, & Ailkinson, 2008, p. 198). In line with this, the combination of unitarist and pluralist approach can also be applied in case of remuneration or awarding employees for an outstanding job performance. With regards to remuneration, it is possible for an employee to want a higher wage. Therefore, the use of pluralist approach can provide the HR manager with the option to enter into a bargaining agreement with the employee. As a result of a win-win negotiation process, employers will be able to increase the loyalty of their employees. Developing and implementing remuneration policies for qualified employees is equally important. Therefore, the use of unitarist approach should not be disregarded when rewarding employees with bonuses. Conclusion When managing contingent workers, combining the use of unitarist and pluralist approach in human resource management is the best choice when it comes to recruitment and selection processes and remuneration as compared to the use of unitary approach alone. Since the employment trend today includes the offering of part-time or freelance work opportunities, entering into a win-win negotiation between employers and employees is necessary to increase the chance that the company will be able to hire the best and most competitive individuals in the labour market. For this reason, the use of unitarist approach alone cannot be effective since this approach follows a top-down communication line without even considering the importance of entering into negotiation process. The same reason applies in remuneration. Since the employer does not know the amount of monetary award that can make contingent employees satisfied, both parties should enter into a negotiation process. By combining the unitarist and pluralist approach in HR management, not only would HR management be able to effectively handle contingent workers but also increase the profitability of a business organization. *** End *** References Adams, R. (2001). Choice or Voice? Rethinking American Labor Policy in Light of the International Human Rights Consensus. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal , 5(2): 521 - 548. Cameron, A., Mcphail, R., & Ailkinson, A. (2008). Introduction to Employment Relations. Australia: Pearson Education Australia. Chang, C.-P., & Liao, I.-F. (2009). Individual Characteristics, Organizational Justice and Job Attitudes of Employees under Non-standard Work Arrangements: Study of Employees of International Tourist Hotels. International Journal of Management , 26(2):224 - 240. Gennard, J., & Judge, G. (2005). Employee relations. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad Management Theories are Destroying Good Management Practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education , 4(1): 75 - 91. Jacoby, S. (2001). Employee Representation and Corporate Governance: A Missing Link. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor and Employment Law , 3(3): 449 - 489. Kelloway, K., Gallagher, D., & Barling, J. (2004). “Work, Employment, and the Individual,” in Bruce E. Kaufman (ed.), Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment Relationship. Champaign, IL: Industrial Relations Research Association. Kochan, T., & Katz, H. (1988). Collective Bargaining and Industrial Relations: From Theory to Policy and Practice. 2nd ed. Homewood, IL.: Irwin. Lewin, D. (2001). IR and HR Perspectives on Workplace Conflict: What Can Each Learn from the Other? Human Resource Management Review , 11(4): 453 – 485. Poole, M., Mansfield, R., Gould-Williams, J., & Mendes, P. (2005). British Managers’ Attitudes and Behavior in Industrial Relations: A Twenty-Year Study. British Journal of Industrial Relations , 43(1): 117 - 134. Singer, P. (2000). Marx: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More