Conflict in the Modern Australian Workforce - Coursework Example

A casual perusal of newspapers and business periodicals at any given time affords the reader the information in the abundance of conflict and all it manifestation in the workplace together with its various consequences on organization. Since time immemorial conflict has been synonymous with organization and particularly business organization. Australia has not been an exception if business periodicals that we are bombarded with on a daily basis are anything to go by. This exposes the centrality of conflict in Australia’s corporate world and why it is a problem that has proved enigmatic to the corporate chiefs. One of the questions that managers have been grappling with over the years is whether it is possible to address and possibly rid organizations from conflict. This is one of the questions that has seen major shift in employee relations since the conception of organizational units. The main objectivity of management is to organize and coordinate resources in a way that maximizes a firm’s wealth or profitability, which is the ultimate goal of any business organization (Balnave, 2007). Although this might not apply to not-for-profit organization, the management’s task is almost similar, especially when it comes to the management of resources. One of the resources that ought to be organized appropriately if the organization is to fulfill its main objective is its human labor. However, the management has since discovered that while this resources is the most effective in enabling an organization meets its objectives, it is also the most difficult to manage, which explain why conflict is such an ubiquitous phenomenon not only in the Australia workplace but also any other workplace. The reasons for this can be seen in the fact that the human labor and the management normally have interests that conflict. This therefore brings us to the question as to what exactly is conflict. Normally, parties to an employment contract endeavors to keep their side of the bargain, which are almost always divergent. This divergence in the interests of parties to an employment contract is the main factor that necessitates conflict in workplaces (Lansbury, 1988). Symptoms of conflict in workplace are many and varied. They include; declining performance, excessive turnover, turf war, excessive turnover, and employees’ increased absenteeism (Brown & Stone 2007). Good management, particularly in an industrial relation background, is that which best organizes and coordinates all resources, including human resource, in a way that gives desirable results. However, the question that one needs to ask is whether ‘good’ management has the capacity of eliminating conflict in the workplace. We need to interrogate how traditional theories of employment can help us in understanding conflict in modern Australia workplace. In so doing, we need to look at the three traditional theories of employees’ relations and how they have contributed to today’s state of affair as far as conflict in Australia workplace is concerned. The three; Unitary theory, Pluralist theory, and radical theory; dominated the debate on workplace conflict for such a long period that they became synonymous with traditional employee relations. It was only on 1980s that a paradigm shift was witnessed which saw additional theories postulated in order to understand the shifting employees’ relation. Considered one of the traditional theories of management, unitary theory is basically anchored in the assumption that a workplace is an incorporated and unified entity that exists primarily for the common good (Hunt & Provis 1995). This theory also assumes that a workplace comprise of an integrated team of harmonious individuals who have the interest of the organization or workplace at heart. It is also anchored on the idea that an organization has an authority structure that is friendly and simple to follow and equally important, a loyalty structure. Lastly, this theory assumes that the management and the workforce have similar values and goals. What this last assumption means is that the management manages the organization purely for the best interests of the workplace or organization. It therefore follows that the management’s prerogative is not only legitimate but also rational and also accepted across the board (Balnave, 2007). Under this theory, conflict is seen as an expression of workers’ dissatisfaction. However due to the assumption of the shared values and goals between workers and the management, such dissatisfaction is unreasonable. Conflict therefore requires to be eliminated either through enhanced management practices or more concerns for their individual needs (Gramberg 2006). The second theory that we can help us understand the modern conflict in Australian workplace is the pluralistic theory. The main point of departure of this theory from the unitary theory is the acknowledgement that firms are populated with individuals with varying interest, goals and aspiration. In this theory, power is equally shared between the two parties to an employment contract and therefore no single party can claim domination from the other (Lansbury 2000). Additionally, there is a thin line of separation between resource ownership and management is clear. According to pluralists, conflict is both rational and an unavoidable consequence of the varying roles of managers and workers. It is therefore the role of the management to not only identify conflict but also resolve it through consulting all parties that are involved. Unlike unitary theorist, pluralists do not consider coercion to be an acceptable way of resolving conflict (Lansbury 2000). The last theory that we can use to understand conflict in the modern Australia workplace is the radical theory. This theory is grounded on the assumption that there will always be conflict in the workplace between employees and the management, which will be caused by unequal distribution of resources (wealth and income) (Balnave, 2007). Considered the broadest of the three theories, the radical theory considers two opposing parties namely; those selling their labor and those who own capital. The owner of the capital maintains their authoritative position through various instruments such as selective recruitment, while sellers of labor are left disadvantaged. According to pluralists, it is this inequality which is responsible for the conflict that has almost become synonymous with organizations. An analysis of these three theories presents a picture where the centrality of conflict is not in dispute in all of them. This is because while the radical theory suggests that conflict will always befall an organization where there is unequal distribution of power, it is important to note that not a single organization can claim to have distributed power to both parties equally not on just in the past but even in today’s organizations. Practically, inequality is common phenomenon of all workplaces in Australia just as is the rest of the corporate world. While the pluralists do not consider conflict as human nature like their radical theorists, they maintain that it is impossible to completely get rid of conflict, which explain why they lay emphasis on conflict resolution rather than its elimination. As much as unitary theorists might want to make us belief that a conflict-free workplace is feasible if the interest of the employees are made to coincide with those of the management, there is no doubt that its practically impossible to reconcile the interests of the two parties if past experience is anything to go by. This is because although they are based on unitary idea of common goal, group working in organizations continue to be characterized by resistance, conflict, contradiction and accommodation (Hunt & Provis 1995), all of which to the existence of conflict. The major difference in the three theories therefore, has nothing to do with the presence of conflict but rather the proper strategy that the management undertakes in responding to conflict. Unitarists on one hand belief that coercion is not required in suppressing conflict, while pluralist prefers resolving conflict through compromise and consultation. ************** Having confirmed that conflict is unavoidable in workplaces, the question that we need to be grappling with has to do with minimize conflict in workplaces and which modern management strategies can assist us in this regard. Due to much touted expensive nature of conflicts that has been noted with the modern organziation, managers have always been very meticulous in implementing strategies that keep or at least attempt to maintain conflict into acceptable levels. In this regard, a manager can adopt any of the three modern strategies that have since been devised and which borrow much from the three traditional theories of employment relation that we have just looked at. The four include; the traditional-strategy, the standard modern strategy, the sophisticated-paternalist-strategy, and sophisticated-modern-strategy. And because each of the these strategies draw elements from the three traditional theories of employment relations, the treatment and ultimate manifestation of conflict is very much different in organization that use any of them in today’s business world. It is also true that through the three traditional theories that we have looked at, we might be able to understand today’s conflict in the Australia context. The traditional strategy borrows heavily from the three traditional theories of employment relations and particularly the unitary theory of management. First, it is characterized by very antagonistic and negative attitude to trade unions, not to mention an extremely exploitative approach to the employees. Additionally, both the management prerogative and the legitimacy of their rights reign supreme (Lansbury 2000). In the early 19th century when it had significant influence on organization in Australia, the traditional strategy was quite effective in controlling workplace conflict in organizations. This was attributed to the lack of a legal framework that, among others, enforces employees’ rights. Employees in Australia were therefore forced to work under a kind of dictatorship that was being perpetuated by the management for their survival. However, it is unlikely for this strategy to work in today’s Australian workplace primarily because of government involvement and social norms. Exploitation of employees will also generate huge pressure not only from the employees themselves but also the government. The sophisticated paternalist strategy, which is the second strategy that modern Australian organizations have adopted in controlling conflict, also borrows heavily from the traditional unitary theory of management. Conversely, paternalist organizations, just as in the past, have identified themselves with the welfare and development of employees. And although it does not seem to have time with trade unions, it does recognize and actually use coercive power in suppressing trade unions, which can be looked on as a slight improvement on the unitary theory that is meant to take care of today’s trade union-based employment relation (Balnave, 2007). In fact, a sophisticated paternalist approach is unlikely to create conflict, essentially due to its nurturing attitude towards employees. Majority of the organizations in Australia that have succeeded in reducing conflict with their employees to manageable levels have done it through embracing this strategy. It is surprising to see how they have managed to convince their employees to shun unions through bonuses and other benefits and also better working conditions. We can also use the pluralist theory to understand Sophisticated Modern strategy and its application in Australia. The first notable thing with managers who have been using Sophisticated Modern strategy is that they recognize and actually accept the existence of unions, which ones again can be looked on as an improvement that is meant to accommodate 21st union-based employees relation. This is despite the fact that unions are known to limit the prerogative or management. However, proponents of this strategy in Australia have always claimed that the union’s presence is good for the management since it facilitate communication within the organization and also helps in creating a symbiotic relationship between the workforce and the management thereby reducing conflict (Gollan 2009). This sound very effective especially because of the way communication has been blamed for conflict not just in Australia but in the entire corporate world (Brown & Stone 2007). Therefore, this strategy endeavors to encourage the use of conflict resolution method in reducing conflict in workplace and not abolish the presence of the same. A practical manifestation of this strategy in Australia corporate body can be seen in the new trend in the organization that seem to overemphasis the need for employees participation programs as a major component of employee relation. Ranging from a simple employee consultancy to an implementing council which gives employees a chance to contribute to decisions that directly affect their workplace, this employees’ participation programs have gone a long way in enabling managers to minimize conflict. The end result of these employees’ participation programs has been enhanced work satisfaction and also increased work harmony (Balnave, 2007). The last strategy that has found favor with managers in Australia in dealing with conflict in the workplace is what is referred to as “Standard Modern strategy.” Other than being quiet pragmatic, this strategy borrows heavily from the radical theory of management, which is one of the traditional theories of employment relations. At the heart of this strategy is the recognition of the existence of workers’ unions. Though it has been found to be quiet effective on minimizing conflict in a number of organizations in Australia, this strategy has failed miserably in other, something that its proponents have attributed to the fact that different policies can only work in specific situations (Lansbury 2000). References Balnave, Nikola. Employment Relations in Australia. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2007. Brown, Kate, & Stone, J., Raymond. Employment Relations in Australia. Sydney: John Wiley & Sons Australia Limited, 2007. Gollan, J., Paul. Australia Industrial Relations Reform in Perspective: Beyond Work Choices and Future prospects Under the Fair Work Act 2009. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Vol. 47, No. 3 (2009): 260-270 Gramberg, V., Bernadine. Managing Workplace Conflict: Alternate Dispute resolution in Australia. New York: Federation Press, 2006 Hunt, Ian, & Provis, Chris. The New Industrial Relations in Australia. New York: Federation Press. 1995. Lansbury, D., Russell. Workplace Change and Empowerment Relations Reform in Australia: Prospects for a New Social Partnership. The Drawing Board: An Australia Review of Public Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 1, (2000): 29-45. Read More