Work Place Change - Challenges or Alternatives to Pluralism - Essay Example

Running Header: Work place change: Challenges or alternatives to pluralism Name: Institution: Course Title: Tutor: Date: Work place change: Challenges or alternatives to pluralism Introduction In a word wide perspective, economic situations are usually dynamic and thus, prone to change. The same concept applies to various sectors of the economy that acts as employment centres or work places. A change in an organization or in work place can be initiated through internal and external factors. These factors can be within the management control or not. Change within a work place can be self driven or outside driven in an event where the management failed to properly anticipate and mitigate either internal or external factors. Management driven change can include continual improvement and restructuring. Change in work place normally has a two way effect (Costello, 1994, p. 6). The effect can both be detrimental or progressive in one way or another. For instance, a change might form an avenue for restructuring and thus reducing operational cost, while on the other hand due to restructuring or some employees might loose their jobs or they might experience shift in job groups. In some cases, change like adoption of new approaches to continual improvement may look expensive at the initiation stage and be resisted by workers but, this in long run might prove beneficial to the employees as increased income might translate to increased remuneration. This paper seeks to explore work place change specifically in relation to austerity measures as a result of macro economic decline within and outside environment (Eaton and Keefe, 1999, p. 1 &2). In addition, the paper discusses the extent to which one of the industrial relations orientations identified by Heery et al. (2008, p. 14-21) is most relevant to understanding work place change. In this case the work place change is the adoption of austerity measures. Moreover, the industrial relations orientation discussed in this context is pluralism approach. Consequently, to justify the line of the paper’s proposition, the paper examines the role of state in terms of policy and or employment regulation. In addition, it will highlight the role of management in terms of relevant strategies and interests. Moreover, employee involvement/participation/representation is dissected. Overview of change perspective, work environment and structural adjustment program/ austerity measures In human life, change is unavoidable. Work place change is defined as a change in organisation’s structure or technology that is likely to have significant effect on members of staff or on the way they carry out their work. The change can be planned if organisation/management is well prepared. This is called a proactive change. On the other hand, change can strike unknowingly if the management is not well prepared thus forcing the management to react. This is called reactive change. High percentage of human beings are resistant to change this is due to the fact that it involves moving from comfortable zone to the unknown and untested zone. During the period of change there will inevitably be staff within the work unit experiencing different emotions, such as loss, anxiety or denial. It is important to realise that different people have different needs and different ways of reacting to change and need time to deal with and adjust to change (Blackard, 2000, p. 45). In an event of change we normally have two or three concerned parties. These parties include the employer, employee ad the government as the regulator. However, change can either be beneficial in long run or destructive. A case of change in an organisation being productive is when it is well planned and guided. This can lead to increased production, client satisfaction, market dominance, increased income, and increased employee retention and identification with the employer. On the other hand, change can lead to massive layoff of workers, dissatisfaction and even closure of the work place. In an event like this, workers and employers both suffer, but since employers have higher leverage than employees, the employees bears most of the consequences. In order to create a vivid picture of discussion, this paper utilizes austerity measures or structural adjustment program as an example of work place change that affects both employer and employees. Austerity measure is defined as the belt tightening approaches in an event of economic slump or in an anticipated slump as a proactive measure or it can be seen as response to financial rationalisation or budgetary constraint. To give this brief overview, the paper notes that change in terms of austerity measures can be driven by macro economic policies both internal and external or those that the company has a control over or not. The second aspect is related to porter’s model of competition and threat, and lastly, the need for continual improvement in an organisation. One main source of change is the general macro environment at national and international level. The world being globalised and with advent of global foot prints, a happening in certain sector of worlds economy or a happening in major industrial powers can affect the performance of a given industry. Thus, this might lead to affected economic sector or the work place to restructure by adopting austerity measures (Eaton and Keefe, 1999, p. 3 &4). This was evident during the recent global recession, where as a result of happenings countries like Ireland and Greece faced massive layoffs. The macro economic environment at national level can also be very detrimental in terms of forcing structural adjustment programs at work place. This might be due to reduced profitability and inflation. Apart from the macro economic environment, other macro factors like legal aspects, socio-cultural practices, politics and technological factors can subject a firm to adopt austerity measures. The second aspect that can lead to adoption of austerity measures is the competitive rivalry or what porter terms as the five competitive forces. These forces shape the environment in which a firm operates in. Thus, if it can not be competitive enough, it will be forced to adopt austerity measures in order to stay afloat. It is imperative that business organizations analyze their environment in order to be able to be able to effectively take advantage of prevailing business opportunities and achieve competitiveness. With this regard, Porte’s five forces model is a significant analytical tool available for business organizations to understand where such business opportunities lie in their industry and business environment. Goymer (2004, p.209) notes that Porter’s five forces model is essential for business organizations in understanding both the business current competitive position and the strength of the position the business is perceived to move to. The forces that porter identifies in his model include bargaining power of customers. The customer is the determinant in spending. Multiple of customers have a huge impact to the market. If many customers perceive that the prices are high, a company will have to reduce the prices to prevent mass shifting of customers to rivals in search of lower prices. Otherwise if they are not well prepared to counter they will be forced to restructure due to low sales. In the event of restructuring employees might be retrenched (Shrader & Heselbein, 2008, p.503). The second force is the bargaining power of Suppliers. Supplier Power enables a business to assess the capacity the suppliers have to adjust prices. This is driven by the number of supplier in each key product, considering the uniqueness of each products o service they supply, their strength and control over the market and the cost that can be incurred in case the business decides to move to other suppliers (Henry, 2008, p.435). Hence, in an event where a firm is not able to sustain its business to business supply chain it will be forced to size down. The third force that can lead to restructuring if not well addressed is the threat of new entrant to the industry. For instance, this kind of threat has seen once viable and powerful company like Kodak to wind up their business as result from tough completion from new entrants in the field of digital photo manufacturing. This has lead to loss of jobs by the employees. The other force is the threat of substitute products or services. The last point is rivalry among existing competitors. Ramsinghani (2011, p.453) notes for business organizations to survive or achieve competitive advantage against rivals in the marketplace, their products must be produced out of innovation and uniqueness. The most important factor to consider when a company considers it has to determine its competitive rivalry is the number of and the capability of its competitors. The other process that can lead to structural adjustment program/ austerity measures is the continual improvement program. This approach can be used to address the porter’s model. However in the process of implementation some kind of restructuring might be needed especial in the human resource sector. The structure of quality encompasses al sectors of a firm right from production, management, communication, leadership, marketing, human resource development among others (Henderson, 2011, p.3). Continual improvement calls for a holistic approach in all departments of the firm. The improvement areas can be in service delivery management, production system and other internal control mechanism. Continual improvement is a prudent concept that allows a company to maintain its market leadership and react to opportunities (Cochran, 2003, p. 1 and 2). JIT philosophy, which constitutes one, of the major parts of the Lean Manufacturing philosophy is a system of organizing production and work flow that produces high quality products by reducing waste and increasing the level of productivity (Sohal et al., 1989, P. 16). Workplace change in the paradigm of employment relations in Australia As noted earlier, in any given environment of work place relation there are three interested parties. The first is the employer or the employers’ federation. The second is the employees or their trade union and the last is the government or the relevant government body/ branch or authority. This kind of scenario places the employee and employers at opposing ends while the government comes in as a regulator. The essence of industrial relation is based on the fact that at a time employers policy might not be holistically acceptable to the employees or vice verse. One source of this conflicting interest is as a result of change. That originates from different sectors. Depending on approaches that the government of the day takes, there can be numerous approaches to employment relations, and thus, influence the overall environment of industrial relations (Lansbury, 2000, p. 31). Different governments have advanced different concepts in employment relations. From 1983 to 1996 labour party in agreement with trade unions advanced the concept of social contract. This was aimed at curtailing inflation. They also advanced reforms in early 1990s by decentralising employment relations. In this phase, non-union agreements in the workplace were permitted. Under this government, pluralistic industrial relations concepts were advanced. After defeating labour party in 1996, the liberal-national party coalition entrenched stance line on labour market. Their policy was driven by unilateral actions of employers. The government supported the perspective of individual bargain rather than collective arrangements. This approach leaned towards neo liberalism. From the above observation, it seam each government wants to achieve labour market flexibility and work place change, but have differed over the means by which these should be done (Lansbury, 2000, p. 31). Relevance of pluralism in understanding austerity measures Austerity measures as a form of change in organisations can be done through reduction in spending by retrenching workers, reassigning people with different skills levels and changing work procedures to reflect the tough conditions. One core aspect in the austerity measures is that it affects both the employer and employee. This is where pluralism fundamentals come into play. Normative orientation such as pluralism advocates for two equally legitimate sets of interest. The key outstanding aspect in this approach that it embraces a accommodative perspective of conflicting interests as compared to other approaches that either leans on the side of employer like neo liberalism or Marxism that lean on the side of employees. As noted earlier, change and innovation in work place occurs through various approaches. This can be built upon gradual or incremental approaches. Change can be forged through collaboration of management, workers and their unions. In addition, some change can result out of organisational crisis and under this change might be forced upon some parties (Blyton and Jenkins, 2007, p. 167). It is open knowledge that during adjustment programmes, some employees are likely to be rendered redundant or be shifted. Again this is where the pluralism approach comes in. The core belief in the fact that employees are more vulnerable due to their reliance on their employers for survival cedes way for pluralism to accept trade unionism as a way of counteracting this vulnerability. Moreover, in a mass scale, the trade unionism creates a lee way for liberal democratic societies. The relevance of pluralism in understanding work place change and advancing new concept can be seen in how most of its core beliefs are applied in work place change management (Denning, 2000, p. 2). An effective work place change management program calls for effective engagement and communication. This point is affirmed by pluralism concept of equal legitimate sets of interests. Other approaches like neo liberalism that aims at dealing with change at individual level can not be fruitful since this translates to divide and rule concept. Management of work place change involves four key steps. According to Maginn (2006), the first key step is planning the change. The second is developing a detailed written change proposal. The third is on advising staff on the decision and implementing of the change. The fourth step involves post implementation and evaluation review. These steps are what pluralism advocates for through dyadic relationship and civilization of the market order. In this sense even under austerity measures, employees are guaranteed payment according to their contract even after being laid off through send off package. In a nutshell, this paper acknowledges the fact that pluralism offers the best paradigm in the field of industrial relation. This latter fact is affirmed by the reality that it is able to strike a mid ground between employer and employees while on the other hand the other paradigms tend to advance extreme level of solutions. Conclusion Change in organisation is inevitable if an organisation wants to stay afloat. However, these changes in work place in one way or another affects the employees more than employers due to their reliance on their employers. In order to avoid these unnecessary friction caused with change, there is need to plan for change and place communication at forefront. This can only be partially achieved if the firm adopts pluralistic approach in solving employment relations. From the observation, the other proponents of work place relation tend to be of extreme. A case example of having to employ austerity measures, there is need for engagement with diverse parties rather than the unilateral decision approach. This ensures that all parties are represented and their grievances are taken care of to avoid labour frictions that were witnessed in countries like Greece in the last global recession. References Blackard, K. 2000, Managing change in a unionized workforce: countervailing collaboration. West port, CT: Greenwood publishing group Blyton, P. and Jenkins, J. 2007, Key concepts in work. London: Sage Publications Cochran, C. 2003, The continual improvement process: from strategy to the bottom line. California: Paton Press LLC. Costello, S. J. 1994, Managing change in the work place. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional Denning, S. L. 2000, Practice of workplace participation: management-employee relations at three participatory firms. West port, CT: Greenwood publishing group Eaton, A. E. and Keefe, J. H. 1999, Employment dispute resolution and worker rights in the changing work place. Cornel: Cornell university press Goymer, J. 2004, BTEC National E-Business. Oxford: Heinemann Henderson, G. R. 2011, Six sigma quality improvement with Minitab, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons Henry, A. 2008, Understanding Strategic Management. New York: Oxford University Press Lansbury, R. D. 2000, Work place change and employment relations in Australia: prospects for a new social partnership. The drawing board: an Australian review of public affairs. Volume 1, number 1 ISSN 1443-8607, pp. 29-45 Maginn, M. D. 2006, Managing in times of change: 24 lessons for leading individuals and teams through change. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional Ramsinghani, M. 2011, The Business of Venture Capital. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Shrader, A. & Heselbein, F. 2008, Enduring Insight on Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Industry Sohal, A.S., Keller, A.Z., and Fouad, R.H. 1988, A Review of Literature Relating to JIT, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 9 Issue: 3, pp.15 – 25. Read More