Unitarist and Pluralist Frames of Reference - Essay Example

The paper 'Unitarist and Pluralist Frames of Reference' is a perfect example of a Management Essay. Frames of reference refer to the different perspectives that the HR professionals use in understanding employment relations. According to Rowley & Jackson (2009), managers cannot solve problems at work by just using common sense but rather, they should use a given frame of reference. They illustrate the frames of reference to include unitarist, pluralist, and radical frames of reference as developed by Alan Fox in 1966.  This paper describes and distinguishes between unitarist and pluralist frames of reference in relation to HRM and ER.

According to Rowley & Jackson (2009), a guitarist considers an organization consisting of a team that is united by shared values and interests, and the senior management is the sole source of authority. On the other hand, pluralism views an organization as consisting of numerous groups with common and divergent interests, and that the role of management is to balance the competing demands among these groups. In this sense, pluralism rejects the perspective of an organization as a unified order.

In the unitary frame of reference, employees strive as a body towards the achievement of a common goal, and thus, they are assumed to work to their ability and follow their appointed leaders (McCourt & Eldridge, 2003). Therefore, there is no need of having trade unions because everybody is on the same side. In pluralism, the presence of varied interests within the organization leads to the formation of trade unions that reflect them.

Conflict is regarded as an abnormal or pathological misunderstanding that is caused by trouble makers in a unitary frame of reference while in pluralism, it is regarded as legitimate only that it should be managed and channeled through the set rules and procedures (Marchington, Wilkinson, Sargeant & CIPD, 2002). In the unitary frame of reference, conflicts are seen as a product of bad management communications and misunderstanding. They are regarded as not only irrational but also unnecessary. In pluralism, conflicts between groups indicate that there is no single focus of authority or loyalty but instead, they are regarded as rival sources of attachment. They are seen as part of an organizational life that cannot be wished away and thus, they should be carefully managed by institutionalizing them.

Marchington, Wilkinson, Sargeant & CIPD (2002) argue that having a unitarist frame of reference in an organization will make managers view themselves as the only legitimate source of authority. Therefore, the employees should respect them unlike in the pluralist frame of reference where the managers recognize the legitimacy of their employees’ point of view within the organization. An example of a unitarist manager is one who expects his employees to trust his decisions, and since the employees supposedly have the same interests, this manager does not expect any conflict to occur in the organization.

A unitarist manager has the right to enforce his or her authority to the employees through coercion if they fail to do what they are told. The manager will hold that he or she has a right to unilaterally fix the working conditions as well as impose them on the employees. In most cases, the manager will resist the attempts by the employee of advancing their interests in a way that is different from his or hers.  This is in contrast to managers with a pluralistic view who accepts the role of trade unions in an organization and believes that the gain of support of the various unions and employees will enhance the achievement of suitable solutions (McCourt & Eldridge, 2003).

In conclusion, power in a unitarist organization lies in the hands of management by the virtue of the authority they possess as organizational decision-makers while for a pluralist organization, the power is more distributed and the balance of power can shift from one group to another within the organization depending on the circumstances at hand.